There is a flurry of law-making activity in the US House of Representatives and in the US senate to impose upto 90% taxes on large bonus payouts to individuals. AIG's ill-timed bonuses have outraged the entire nation and have led lawmakers to to use this blunt blow to root out bonuses in all sick companies supported by taxpayer money. But the move is a populist one, and one that may have far deeper consequences than recovering a few hundred million in bonus money. I am afraid there is a lot to lose with this last minute decision of making a law limiting bonuses. The taxpayer will actually end up loosing much more in the long run.
In many companies bonuses are given across the organization to all employees. A bonus for a good quarter, a bonus for Christmas, etc. But in knowledge-intensive fields bonuses are disproportionately distributed and given a small subset of employees who create exceptional (significantly over the average) value for the company. Knowledge-intensive fields include finance and banking where a talented person can create a lot more value than another lesser talented person. The distinction between employees is easily measurable in banks (earned profits) and therefore banks can easily reward better-performing employees. The reason for the reward is the hope is that a better performing employee can be retained in the company if she is paid a bonus.
A modern bank's success is almost wholly dependent on its employees. Banks are no longer armies of clerks following a rule book and doing the same thing every single day. Instead, banks are participating in a very sophisticated knowledge-based global game where bankers make decisions on how to invest their depositor's money. They employ some of the brightest minds to compete with other bright minds of other financial institutions, all of them trying to maximize returns on invested money. Quite naturally, the financial institution with the most creative, innovative, smart, and industrious people will take it all away.
Not all minds are equal. Hence all bankers cannot be paid the same income. Its a mind game, and intellect is not equal across the board in every employee (perhaps unfortunately, but certainly by natural design). Bankers are men and women like the rest of us. They will gravitate to financial institutions which pay better. By removing the bonus incentive for bright people in ailing financial institutions we are clearly reducing the chances of these institutions recovering taxpayer money as the brightest will leave or be less motivated.
Bonuses have been wrongly maligned in this whole saga. They are one of the best tools to improve worker productivity, commitment, and a company's bottom line.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Firefox: Finally, a credible threat to Google?
Today there is an extremely interesting article in WSJ about Firefox's threat to Google. No this is not about Firefox vs. Google's Chrome browser. It is about a small feature in recent Firefox browsers that stores web-pages accessed via the browser off-line and presents this locally-stored content as search results to users as they type words into the Firefox browser's address bar. Such local caching is not a new concept, but the nice interface that Firefox provides is certainly a huge improvement. The article says that local caching of data will eventually erode the high number of search requests going to Google, thereby reducing the value of its search engine. Local caching makes sense for users who get their (locally available) content faster, can access cached content when off-line, and do not have to pay for bandwidth. It makes sense for the content providers that do not have to serve the same content multiple times to the same user, and it makes sense for ISPs whose (flat-rate) bandwidth is spared.
But before content can be cached locally, it needs to be searched and found (at least once) on the Internet...and there is a good chance Google will be employed to do this first search. Still, from my experience I will say that I often search the Internet for the same information. With a convenient locally accessible cache, I would cut the number of times I go to Google. Moreover, there is talk in academic circles about "leaf computing", the opposite of cloud computing. The idea of leaf computing is to build distributed computing platforms. For example, a bunch of like-minded individuals can self-organize their computers into a distributed, specialized web-crawler that goes and searches the Internet for relevant information to index, or syncs up the saved book-marks/local Firefox caches of several users. If there is enough bandwidth and storage on the 'leaf' computers, then why not move away from cloud computing and into a distributed leaf computing architecture?
From a Google Ad-sense point of view, I think Google may modify its search engine usage terms to have the right to serve ads even on locally cached content if this content was initially found using Google. Others may argue that all the value is delivered to a user the first time search results are used (like buying a song: you pay the same no matter how many times you listen), and so Google cannot serve ads for locally cached content. Does Google have the right to serve ads on locally stored content that it initially found? This is analogous to the TIVO advertisement issue of whether advertisement slots bought for a live show can be removed and other advertisements inserted for later recorded playback.
But before content can be cached locally, it needs to be searched and found (at least once) on the Internet...and there is a good chance Google will be employed to do this first search. Still, from my experience I will say that I often search the Internet for the same information. With a convenient locally accessible cache, I would cut the number of times I go to Google. Moreover, there is talk in academic circles about "leaf computing", the opposite of cloud computing. The idea of leaf computing is to build distributed computing platforms. For example, a bunch of like-minded individuals can self-organize their computers into a distributed, specialized web-crawler that goes and searches the Internet for relevant information to index, or syncs up the saved book-marks/local Firefox caches of several users. If there is enough bandwidth and storage on the 'leaf' computers, then why not move away from cloud computing and into a distributed leaf computing architecture?
From a Google Ad-sense point of view, I think Google may modify its search engine usage terms to have the right to serve ads even on locally cached content if this content was initially found using Google. Others may argue that all the value is delivered to a user the first time search results are used (like buying a song: you pay the same no matter how many times you listen), and so Google cannot serve ads for locally cached content. Does Google have the right to serve ads on locally stored content that it initially found? This is analogous to the TIVO advertisement issue of whether advertisement slots bought for a live show can be removed and other advertisements inserted for later recorded playback.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Wiring up my cellphone to my Web 2.0
I have done 3 fun things over the past 2 months. First, I bought a very capable text.phone - the Nokia E71. Second, I connected my phone to my blog so I can send an email to my blog and it gets posted. And third, I set up a Twitter account where I can post messages via SMS.
Now this changes things. Suddenly I am untethered like never before. The ability to capture and publish information in real-time has moved from professional TV camera crews riding satellite TV vans to anyone with a phone that can send SMS.
That's change for the better. And one more example where tech and gadgets leave the nerd domain and change mainstream society. Information flowing freely, leaking through the porous gaps made possible through such emerging technology will loosen the grip of those who seek to control information, and by extension, the free will of people.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Blackberry's application store foray
Blackberry is joining the app-store party by launching its own application store for the the Blackberry platform. There is a nice developer website and lots of buzz around RIM's latest move to take on the growing popularity of iTunes's app-store and the upcoming Nokia Ovi app-store. It is going to be an uphill battle catching up with the iPhone for all these me-too app-store ; but the Blackberry platform is a slightly different beast and its app-store positioning is quite different for some reasons.
First, most Blackberries are corporate property with significant organizational IT control over the devices. RIM may be positioning the developer tools and app-store for corporate IT development rather than for encouraging college-kid hackers who are trying to make a fast buck or two by writing a small game etc. This may explain why the Blackberry developer license ($200) is more expensive than the iTunes developer license ($99). In my opinion Blackberry isn't nearly looking to equal the number of iPhone applications. Its looking for serious business centric stuff on its app-store.
Second, Blackberries are not fun devices. When I see a Blackberry I start thinking of my consultant friends, complete with black suits and polished leather shoes! The Blackberry application consumer is going to be very unlike a 14-year old teen touting yet-another facebook widget on her iPhone. Instead, its going to be a corporate IT vice-president who likes an activity logging tool for the Blackberry to keep tabs on employees. Or an executive who downloads an extension of pocket-Excel for say, better readability. Bottomline: serious business applications.
Third, Blackberry apps will have to "work" much harder to gain the trust of potential downloaders. Blackberries carry confidential data and compromising this data could put the owners business (and/or job) at risk. Imagine the consequences of a software trojan that opens a connection to a server, dumps the contents of the Blackberry, and then blackmails the user or her organization? Certified and branded software applications have a much better chance of acceptance in the Blackberry user space.
Lastly, the Blackberry back-end is a unique add-on for developers. The "push" technology back-end of RIM can be used to create innovative applications on the Blackberry that may not be possible on other platforms. Question is, what is the (other) killer application for RIM push technology?
First, most Blackberries are corporate property with significant organizational IT control over the devices. RIM may be positioning the developer tools and app-store for corporate IT development rather than for encouraging college-kid hackers who are trying to make a fast buck or two by writing a small game etc. This may explain why the Blackberry developer license ($200) is more expensive than the iTunes developer license ($99). In my opinion Blackberry isn't nearly looking to equal the number of iPhone applications. Its looking for serious business centric stuff on its app-store.
Second, Blackberries are not fun devices. When I see a Blackberry I start thinking of my consultant friends, complete with black suits and polished leather shoes! The Blackberry application consumer is going to be very unlike a 14-year old teen touting yet-another facebook widget on her iPhone. Instead, its going to be a corporate IT vice-president who likes an activity logging tool for the Blackberry to keep tabs on employees. Or an executive who downloads an extension of pocket-Excel for say, better readability. Bottomline: serious business applications.
Third, Blackberry apps will have to "work" much harder to gain the trust of potential downloaders. Blackberries carry confidential data and compromising this data could put the owners business (and/or job) at risk. Imagine the consequences of a software trojan that opens a connection to a server, dumps the contents of the Blackberry, and then blackmails the user or her organization? Certified and branded software applications have a much better chance of acceptance in the Blackberry user space.
Lastly, the Blackberry back-end is a unique add-on for developers. The "push" technology back-end of RIM can be used to create innovative applications on the Blackberry that may not be possible on other platforms. Question is, what is the (other) killer application for RIM push technology?
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Social Network Regulation
Telecommunication companies unbundled the local loop in the past decade to comply with government regulation designed to spur competition in broadband services. The regulation was enacted for allowing competitors to use the last-mile copper, which belongs to incumbent telecommunication companies, in return for a fixed (small) fee. For example, Germany has dozens of broadband providers that use Deutsche Telekom's infrastructure to reach all customers that DT reaches. A customer can switch from DT to another provider if she prefers. Therefore, the governments motive of creating competition in the marketplace has succeeded.
Now lets fast-forward to 2015. Social networking has become ubiquitious. The inevitable shakeout, M&A and standardization forces have linked up all social networks into one huge giant network. People communicate primarily over social networks. The search engine has become second to this the human Gaia - the social uber network. A collective virtual intelligence, call it society 2.0, overlaid over the society we know. Last time a technology, voice telephony, became the flagship mode of communication, government stepped in to regulate it, control it, and overhear if needed. Before last time another technology, snail mail post, became the flagship mode of communication, government stepped in to regulate it, control it, and read it if needed. And so it shall be with be with social networks.
How and when will social network regulation come about?
Now lets fast-forward to 2015. Social networking has become ubiquitious. The inevitable shakeout, M&A and standardization forces have linked up all social networks into one huge giant network. People communicate primarily over social networks. The search engine has become second to this the human Gaia - the social uber network. A collective virtual intelligence, call it society 2.0, overlaid over the society we know. Last time a technology, voice telephony, became the flagship mode of communication, government stepped in to regulate it, control it, and overhear if needed. Before last time another technology, snail mail post, became the flagship mode of communication, government stepped in to regulate it, control it, and read it if needed. And so it shall be with be with social networks.
How and when will social network regulation come about?
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Reinventing the software development business for the mobile world
Here is Pinch Media's presentation "AppStore Secrets", a data analysis of about 30m downloads of from the Apple iPhone application store. There were several insights in the presentation. The first thing that struck me was the relatively short lifespan of mobile applications compared to PC based applications.
Consider this: According to the presentation, most mobile applications seemed to "die-out" within days. They lie unused, or worse, they are uninstalled within a few days. Not even months. Compare that with Microsoft's MS Office, which usually lives on a PC for its entire lifetime. Usually a new MS Office user increases her usage over the months and years after purchasing it. While MS Office is expensive relative to mobile applications, the former's "per-run" cost may actually be lower than app-store mobile applications.
Fortunately the number of man-hours going into simple mobile applications for things like storing recipes and writing notes is quite small and most applications seem to be coming out of garage startups. I think this will change and we will see the emergence of a conglomeration of developers (e.g. a large mobile development company or even a developers' cooperative) who can amortize the risk and costs of mobile development. This may curtail rags-to-riches stories of 'lone star developers' as success will also be amortized. Still, the synergies of a large developer group working together, sharing code and risk make this a valuable preposition.
High level, reusable and modular tools that can be used to compose applications easily should emerge as the winners for mobile application prototyping and development. Developing everything in C++ from the ground up will not be economically feasible. Instead development tools like Python for the Symbian platform and .NET tools for Windows Mobile will become popular with developers. Given the variety of platforms, a cross-platform tool will have a huge advantage. In my opinion, Adobe's mobile development tools like Flash Lite are well positioned for such high-level and cross-platform mobile development.
Consider this: According to the presentation, most mobile applications seemed to "die-out" within days. They lie unused, or worse, they are uninstalled within a few days. Not even months. Compare that with Microsoft's MS Office, which usually lives on a PC for its entire lifetime. Usually a new MS Office user increases her usage over the months and years after purchasing it. While MS Office is expensive relative to mobile applications, the former's "per-run" cost may actually be lower than app-store mobile applications.
Fortunately the number of man-hours going into simple mobile applications for things like storing recipes and writing notes is quite small and most applications seem to be coming out of garage startups. I think this will change and we will see the emergence of a conglomeration of developers (e.g. a large mobile development company or even a developers' cooperative) who can amortize the risk and costs of mobile development. This may curtail rags-to-riches stories of 'lone star developers' as success will also be amortized. Still, the synergies of a large developer group working together, sharing code and risk make this a valuable preposition.
High level, reusable and modular tools that can be used to compose applications easily should emerge as the winners for mobile application prototyping and development. Developing everything in C++ from the ground up will not be economically feasible. Instead development tools like Python for the Symbian platform and .NET tools for Windows Mobile will become popular with developers. Given the variety of platforms, a cross-platform tool will have a huge advantage. In my opinion, Adobe's mobile development tools like Flash Lite are well positioned for such high-level and cross-platform mobile development.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Sirius XM satellite radio almost went bankrupt. A lesson for paid cellular mobile video?
Satellite radio seemed like a good idea. Crystal clear, ad-free, broadcast distance-agnostic , high-quality audio content for those long commutes, all for about $10 per month. But apparently Sirius-XM, the 800-pound gorilla of US satellite radio, is in dire straits. It avoided Chapter 11 bankruptcy after Direct TV propped it up with funding, probably at the price of being taken over by Direct TV.
But what does this say about users' appetite to pay for content while they are on the move? If paid radio did not fly, then will paid mobile video not fly either? We have a simple analogy here
Its tempting to write up the requiem for paid cellular mobile video based on the satellite radio example. But here are some things going for cellular mobile video
But what does this say about users' appetite to pay for content while they are on the move? If paid radio did not fly, then will paid mobile video not fly either? We have a simple analogy here
free FM : paid Satellite radio :: free Digital TV (e.g. DVB-H) : paid cellular mobile video
?
- Mobile VoD allows users to select what they want to see, unlike satellite radio, which is a broadcast medium.
- Cellular video is truly untethered because it is consumed on the mobile device. On the other hand, satellite radio is not carried in the pocket - it is usually built into car entertainment systems. No extra equipment is needed for cellular mobile video unlike satellite radio.
- Video is inherently a richer and more engaging medium than radio.
- Telecom companies are going to sink a lot of marketing effort into making mobile video a success. Paid mobile video service is one of the most significant use-case for high speed wireless networks. And perhaps, the best escape pod from the dumb-bit-pipe scenario that telecom companies want to avoid.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Mobile application stores and Telcos
Today's WSJ carries an article about online software application stores being the latest "me-too" business being promoted by mobile device manufacturers, telecom companies, and even independent companies. The first notable app-store came from Apple last year, for its iPhone and iPod Touch platform. Apparently IBM has already created a generic platform to create such app-stores, making it easy for any company to start its own app-store.
Third party mobile applications have been around for for a long time - ever since there were APIs and development platforms for mobile devices. I remember developing applications for a Palm III device using the Code Warrior IDE back in 2001. Microsoft also promoted Windows CE/PocketPC/Mobile development via Visual Studio and .NET from early on. In response the developer community created tons of mobile device applications that have been sold or given away for free on the Internet. So what has changed with the advent of the app-store? And why all this sudden interest? These are some of the obvious reasons for app-stores to exist:
Its not all red for telecom companies though. Smart phones and new applications are driving up data plan usage in a big way. There are some unknowns here, for example, users may start using flat-rate data plans for voice (through VOIP) and SMS (through IM and email) substitution. But will the cannibalization hurt telcos or will data plans compensate for the loss of voice and messaging revenue?
Third party mobile applications have been around for for a long time - ever since there were APIs and development platforms for mobile devices. I remember developing applications for a Palm III device using the Code Warrior IDE back in 2001. Microsoft also promoted Windows CE/PocketPC/Mobile development via Visual Studio and .NET from early on. In response the developer community created tons of mobile device applications that have been sold or given away for free on the Internet. So what has changed with the advent of the app-store? And why all this sudden interest? These are some of the obvious reasons for app-stores to exist:
- The host company gets a cut of the revenue. For example Nokia will get a 30% cut on each sale in its Ovi software store. The developer gets to keep the balance. In addition, by providing this portal facility to developers host companies can attract developers who create cool applications, spurring the popularity of their devices.
- The developer gets a suitable hosting platform for her applications. This includes a payment system, and users may be more willing to trust big names (Apple, Nokia) instead of a small unknown development company when they give out their credit card information.
- The user gets a one-stop application shopping solution where she can compare applications and buy with confidence since hosting companies are most likely to certify applications for compatibility, quality, security, and legal compliance before selling them.
Its not all red for telecom companies though. Smart phones and new applications are driving up data plan usage in a big way. There are some unknowns here, for example, users may start using flat-rate data plans for voice (through VOIP) and SMS (through IM and email) substitution. But will the cannibalization hurt telcos or will data plans compensate for the loss of voice and messaging revenue?
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
The Storage-Processing-Bandwidth triangle in mobiles
The three fundamental "juices" of mobile devices - storage, CPU, and bandwidth - have been improving over the past decade. Storage has grown thanks to better and cheaper flash memory, CPUs have become spiffy thanks to Moore's law and advances in low-power CPU design, and bandwidth has improved thanks to 3G network roll outs. These 3 define the operating point of mobile device applications i.e., what are the trade-offs application designers make based on these underlying capabilities of a device. For example, if bandwidth was free and infinite then there would be less motivation to cache data on devices and instead most data (e.g. an address book) would be stored online. This would have the advantage of letting users access the same address book from different devices and computers.
But the truth is that while storage (bits per dollar) has doubled almost every year in the last decade, CPU and bandwidth have not kept the same pace. CPU power can still be jacked up if one is willing to trade battery life for faster CPUs. But bandwidth remains expensive (bits per dollar) and unreliable (spotty coverage) as compared to storage. Where is the operating point of upcoming mobile devices like smartphones heading? Will the distortion due to seemingly limitless storage lead to a redefinition of the mobile phone into a device that is less phone and more storage/CPU? Will voice and data lose their killer application status on the mobile device? What will users be doing with all that storage and CPU becoming available on their mobile phones?
It is safe to state that whenever data can be cached it will be cached. It just costs much more to transmit a bit than to store it, and transmission latency is also a problem. So expect applications to reduce bandwidth usage through local caching. High cellular bandwidth cost will also promote disruptive services like Wifi-enabled smartphones that can easily bypass operators' expensive data networks. With applications like Fring, users can already make phone calls using Skype on Wifi enabled phones. Mobile phone cameras routinely take images at multiple megapixel resolutions. But these high resolution pictures are seldom transmitted over the mobile wireless interface and are instead stored for later downloading to a PC. Many mobile device mapping solutions do not use cellular data networks and instead rely on storing all the maps locally. Multiplayer mobile games have not taken off either, partly because of the technical and pricing limitations of cellular bandwidth. I download my email over my home Wifi connection into my Nokia E71, reply to these emails on the train while commuting to work, and then connect via Wifi to send the replies once I am in office. Similarly, applications like Avantgo give users the option of avoiding the usage of expensive cellular data plans.
The argument I have tried to make is that the mobile device is not shackled to voice and cellular data only. Market forces will spur creativity to utilize these little wonders of modern technology in engaging and inexpensive ways. Voice and data may not remain the killer-apps on these devices.
But the truth is that while storage (bits per dollar) has doubled almost every year in the last decade, CPU and bandwidth have not kept the same pace. CPU power can still be jacked up if one is willing to trade battery life for faster CPUs. But bandwidth remains expensive (bits per dollar) and unreliable (spotty coverage) as compared to storage. Where is the operating point of upcoming mobile devices like smartphones heading? Will the distortion due to seemingly limitless storage lead to a redefinition of the mobile phone into a device that is less phone and more storage/CPU? Will voice and data lose their killer application status on the mobile device? What will users be doing with all that storage and CPU becoming available on their mobile phones?
It is safe to state that whenever data can be cached it will be cached. It just costs much more to transmit a bit than to store it, and transmission latency is also a problem. So expect applications to reduce bandwidth usage through local caching. High cellular bandwidth cost will also promote disruptive services like Wifi-enabled smartphones that can easily bypass operators' expensive data networks. With applications like Fring, users can already make phone calls using Skype on Wifi enabled phones. Mobile phone cameras routinely take images at multiple megapixel resolutions. But these high resolution pictures are seldom transmitted over the mobile wireless interface and are instead stored for later downloading to a PC. Many mobile device mapping solutions do not use cellular data networks and instead rely on storing all the maps locally. Multiplayer mobile games have not taken off either, partly because of the technical and pricing limitations of cellular bandwidth. I download my email over my home Wifi connection into my Nokia E71, reply to these emails on the train while commuting to work, and then connect via Wifi to send the replies once I am in office. Similarly, applications like Avantgo give users the option of avoiding the usage of expensive cellular data plans.
The argument I have tried to make is that the mobile device is not shackled to voice and cellular data only. Market forces will spur creativity to utilize these little wonders of modern technology in engaging and inexpensive ways. Voice and data may not remain the killer-apps on these devices.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Clearwire, Wimax, and cheap broadband
There is a interesting article in the current Fortune about the troubles Clearwire is facing in rolling out Wimax on a large scale across the US. Apparently, it is working out to be much more expensive than was hoped.
In the city of Portland, Or, about 300 Wimax towers were needed to cover the whole area. Although in principle each Wimax tower covers several miles, uneven terrain can quickly spoil this. Clearwire offers Wimax for 30 dollars a month, a price that is significantly lower than wired broadband. But with the necessity of new hardware on the user side, will it work? Especially with Telcos supporting LTE as the Wimax alternative?
The answer lies on the business model for Wimax. Wimax has the edge in terms of early deployment and heavy weight supporters like Google and Intel. The key is the ubiquity of rollout as compared to telcos' LTE. Another question is whether Wimax equipment will be bundled as standard Laptop/phone equipment . Wired Broadband also bundles services like voice and increasingly, TV. How suitable is Wimax for these value-added services?
Sunday, February 15, 2009
The computing world meets the home electronics world
One would think that computers and data networks can be easily integrated with home electronics like Hifi systems and TVs. Not so. Try hooking up a Hifi to your iTunes collection. Even if you are able to pipe the audio from the computer's sound card into the Hifi's line-in, its hardly convenient to browse and select songs on the computer and have them play on the Hifi. Computers are still lean-forward devices that require active user participation with keyboards and mice. I want to listen to music on my Hifi and browse my music collection sitting on my couch with a remote control. I want to control the music without having to unlocking the computer's screen saver and then using the mouse to control the software music player. And yes, I want to listen to my music with the fidelity that my Hifi offers.
Its interesting that content like movies, music, etc., produced primarily for home electronics, has moved from home electronics to computers and networks but the opposite movement of computing and networks features into home electronics has been slower. One could argue that computers can be easily programmed to mimic home electronics (e.g. software media and DVD players) whereas home electronics have to implement things in hardware - a more complex preposition. But modern electronics is easily capable of integrating computing and networking into products given how modular ASIC technology has become. Most home electronics has digital control circuitry since the 90s. These things are being controlled by computers for the past 2 decades! Then why aren't these computers interfacing to other computers and the big I(nternet)?
In my opinion, the reasons for this relative one-way street between computers and home electronics are more business and consumer related than technology related.
But things are changing. Our shiny new Denon M37 Hifi came with a USB port proudly placed on the front panel! The new war of the electronics world and the computer world. Or their confluence.
Its interesting that content like movies, music, etc., produced primarily for home electronics, has moved from home electronics to computers and networks but the opposite movement of computing and networks features into home electronics has been slower. One could argue that computers can be easily programmed to mimic home electronics (e.g. software media and DVD players) whereas home electronics have to implement things in hardware - a more complex preposition. But modern electronics is easily capable of integrating computing and networking into products given how modular ASIC technology has become. Most home electronics has digital control circuitry since the 90s. These things are being controlled by computers for the past 2 decades! Then why aren't these computers interfacing to other computers and the big I(nternet)?
In my opinion, the reasons for this relative one-way street between computers and home electronics are more business and consumer related than technology related.
- Silo thinking and protecting markets: For the home electronics industry, one living room = 1 Hifi + 1 TV + 1 DVD player + 1 Home theatre... Home electronics makers are reluctant to provide interfaces to connect up devices, especially digital interfaces like data networking capabilities, because there is scope to squeeze out redundancy. Today most living rooms have 3 audio amplifiers (TV, Hifi, home theatre) instead of one. But how long can this redundancy last if all music could be noiselessly (digitally) piped into one amplifier?
- End users' lean back leanings: Home electronics buyers were people in their 30s-70s who were not too comfortable dealing with computers and Internet technologies. On the other hand users who used computers for entertainment were mostly younger. But an increasing number of people are totally at ease with the concepts of computing and data networks.
- The computer vs. home electronics experience: There is certainly a difference between watching a DVD on a laptop and watching one on a DVD-TV setup. Up until recently this was enough to sway many toward home electronics. But the gap has narrowed significantly now. My wife's Dell XPS laptop comes with a remote control! Acquiring content is more convenient over the Internet (iTunes, Netflix, etc.) instead of acquiring it for home electronics (e.g.video store).
- The other side: Unlike home electronics, the computer and telecommunications industry have been pushing any software application that consumes CPU, disk-space and network bandwidth - i.e. - music, video, and TV.
But things are changing. Our shiny new Denon M37 Hifi came with a USB port proudly placed on the front panel! The new war of the electronics world and the computer world. Or their confluence.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Smartphones and value for money
Ok so I took the plunge. My shiny new Nokia E71 arrived last week. This is the first time I have bought a mobile phone at its retail price. Before this, I was usually happy to choose among the free phones supplied by the carriers. But this time things are different. There are fantastic smart-phones on the market (like the E71) and I have figured out the math behind why "free" is not free when it comes to mobile phone plans and 2 year lock-in periods.
Still, spending 300-odd Euros on a phone triggered introspection. Do I really need a smart phone that is, well, so smart. Smart is a relative term. I used to sync my old Sony-Ericsson to my PC Outlook and have my contacts and calendar up-to-date. That was smart too. So the question is, is my E 71's extra smartness worth the Euros? After 3 days, here are the things I am doing with my new phone that I could'nt earlier. Offcourse Nokia advertises the things you can do with this new phone, but I seriously doubt I will ever do all that Nokia suggests.
1. Do emails on the train.
2. Use the basic English-German dictionary in the phone
3. Type SMSes faster
4. Set up appointments, to-dos easily on the phone, thanks to its keyborad
5. Get an automatic weather report in the morning
6. Solitaire
7. GPS.. well, perhaps in the summer if I get lost or something (unlikely though)
8. I can chat and Skype-out using Fring.
Well lets suppose the phone lasts 2 years. that would get its price to under 50 Euro cents per day (discounting the cost of capital). That probably makes it worth the money given the list above.
...or am I rationalizing the splurge?
Still, spending 300-odd Euros on a phone triggered introspection. Do I really need a smart phone that is, well, so smart. Smart is a relative term. I used to sync my old Sony-Ericsson to my PC Outlook and have my contacts and calendar up-to-date. That was smart too. So the question is, is my E 71's extra smartness worth the Euros? After 3 days, here are the things I am doing with my new phone that I could'nt earlier. Offcourse Nokia advertises the things you can do with this new phone, but I seriously doubt I will ever do all that Nokia suggests.
1. Do emails on the train.
2. Use the basic English-German dictionary in the phone
3. Type SMSes faster
4. Set up appointments, to-dos easily on the phone, thanks to its keyborad
5. Get an automatic weather report in the morning
6. Solitaire
7. GPS.. well, perhaps in the summer if I get lost or something (unlikely though)
8. I can chat and Skype-out using Fring.
Well lets suppose the phone lasts 2 years. that would get its price to under 50 Euro cents per day (discounting the cost of capital). That probably makes it worth the money given the list above.
...or am I rationalizing the splurge?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)