With great celerity, Sony and Universal shoot themselves in the foot

I was ready to write an article about the PS3. I wrote half of it last night with the intention of publishing it this afternoon, but I got derailed. I had an essay ready about how Sony dropped the ball. Perhaps I'll complete it Saturday or Sunday. But for now, I'm going to rag on Microsoft and the Zune - or, more specifically, the companies behind the Zune.

Engadget has confirmed that the songs of roughly half the artists featured in the Zune Marketplace are nontransferable between Zunes - one of the MP3 player's biggest draws, already limited by the three-play/three-day limitation. Which artists? Musicians signed to Sony BMG and Universal Music Group. Remember that Microsoft is already paying $1 to Universal per Zuen sold? Well, this is what we get in return. Thanks a lot.

So what am I going to do about this? I won't buy any new CDs from artists signed to those labels. Used CDs are just fine. If I decide I want a copy of Good News for People Who Love Bad News by Modest Mouse, I can get it used from one of over a hundred Amazon users. Modest Mouse is, of course, signed to Epic Records, a subsidiary of Sony BMG.

This is no longer a matter of knowing that the Zune will die - I want the Zune to die. Between suing a few dozen thousand suspected file-sharers and trying to pass broadcast flag legislation and trying to even make CD ripping illegal, I've decided that I'm fed up. I will not buy new music from the big labels. Used music is just fine - Not only is it cheaper, but I also won't be contributing to record labels in buying used. Stick it to the Man!

The states are full of people

We have a republic? That's a question it is suddenly appropriate to ask. Bush has decided that, no matter why Congress does, Bush will escalate the Iraqi War. At one point, Bush even says, "I made my decision, and we're going forward."

Should I be surprised? Am I so naive to think that our president wants what's best for the country?At this point, the only thing Bush cares about is the context of his name in the history books. Bush seems to suffer from the delusion that history books will glorify his bloodied name. Bush fails to recognize, however, that history is written by historians - actual people. Only the die hard neocon historians (if there will be any left in the next half century) will claim that Bush acted in the best interests of the country - because in reality, Bush is not doing that at all. Bush gave the United States of America that proverbial "screw you" of politics.

Roughly 70% of the public doesn't want a surge, and the majority of Congressmen also are opposed to an escalation of the war - and it has been reported in the media that such a facet is true. Bush's approval ratings hover around 30%. He's been chastised by Gerald Ford. Even Tony Blair is not happy with the president.

But none of that matters to George W. Bush. Why, he's the Decider! He's never been to a Waffle House in his life! George W. Bush has stated to 60 Minutes that he's the only guy in the United States that matters - never mind the 200 million Americans that disagree with his war plan. Has Bush ever seen 200 million people all at once, in person? No one has. The difference between Bush and everyone else is that Bush doesn't care. He doesn't care if the ship is sinking or of millions of his subjects want to head out of the dangerous waters - by golly, it's his ship!

Some time between now and the next two years, Bush will have to learn to share his toys with some random group of people called "the citizens of the United States of America," or else Bush will be responsible for blindsiding reform and blocking important legislature. He can't stonewall the Constitution for ever.

Of course, when it comes time to take the blame, Bush will blame it on some other guy - maybe Bill Clinton. But by the time we evacuate the troops from Iraq, nobody will actually believe the whole mess is Bill Clinton's fault. But I bet the neocons will try.

Still no Wii

I guess I'm not the only one who wants a Wii. Right now there are 11,000 Wiis for sale on eBay. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. It's been almost two months since Nintendo released the Wii, and Nintendo still hasn't been able to meet the demand. Good Lord, Nintendo should have had the whole thing in the bag by January 1st - 4 million units sold, as promised? But Nintendo didn't deliver on shipping 4 million Wiis. They're giving waiting consumers like me time to rethink their decisions. If you're a company with the hottest game console in the world, you don't leave your consumers hanging for several months! That gives the hype time to die down, and you can't have that!

Fifty and two hundred dollars is no small price to pay. You can't spend that amount on an impulse buy. Tell consumers that they can buy a Wii and then not let them, and after a while they'll find some other use for that quarter of a thousand bucks. If you let people know that they can live without your product for an extended period of time, they will learn to live without you. I have never seen a Wiimote in person. I have never seen the console in action in person. I'm really frustrated about how badly Nintendo is going about this. Bitter? Yes. Nintendo should be doing a better job than this.

Give Bush another chance?

So President Bush made a speech on January 10: "Give me another chance!" Bush said that the fault for the path of the war rested with him and proceeded to ask for another chance. And 20,000 more troops.

Huh?

Really, huh? How stupid does this man think the American people are (or at least me)? C'mon, we gave him three years - almost four - to win this war. But now the soldier body count has exceeded the casualty toll from the September 11th attacks. We are engaged in a war that will likely cost the United States a trillion dollars. That's not mentioning the body count of Iraqi citizens - who have died in greater numbers than the soldiers.

Bush, you got the United States into a dangerous war with no strategy, no Plan B, and no understanding of the Muslim world - No one in the administration knew the difference between Shiites and Sunnis, or that a difference even existed. The administration actually thought that we would be treated as heroes. Oh yes, and roses would be thrown at Marines' feet.

But what really gets me is Afghanistan. We went and bombed the hell out of those terrorist training camps and drove out the Taliban and searched for that bastard that started the whole disaster, Osama bin Laden. President Bush promised the world that we would neither eat nor sleep until Osama bin Laden was found, dead or alive. But we have slept and eaten, and we don't know where Osama bin Laden is, or if he is even alive or dead.

Mr. Bush has no business asking for another chance. He's had six years to fight the war on terror, and he has bungled it badly. Twenty thousand more soldiers won't wrap it up shortly. We can't afford to fall for it again.

What does music say about a person?

I've always thought that music in the social concept is an interesting topic: How does our taste in sound define us? People are social creatures, and music is inherently social. Some musicians perform for the fans, others for the experience, and others to try to reach stardom. What's so peculiar about music is how much of it relies on other people: If you sing the most beautiful song in the world and no one hears it, is it worth anything? If no one ever knows that you were singing, then the only benefit is your enjoyment - the base incentive to perform. Beyond personal enjoyment, all other benefits rely on the people who experience the performance. Many musicians are pleased if fans enjoy their work. Some musicians release their recordings on the Internet for free, in order to attract listeners. Every musical artist has asked: How do I draw fans?

And it's the fans that drive the music off-stage. It's the fans that have driven everything that happens beyond the musicians: What people think about them, which music CDs people buy, what merchandise to buy. The people who don't make the music spread it. The market for music exists because people are different, and the buyers all have their auditory senses intact (or, mostly).

And the subcultures all have their own music. Whether the subculture defines the music or the music defines the subculture is a possibility to consider. Would the goth movement exist without death metal? Would the emo subculture exist without Bright Eyes? Or do 50 Cent and Aesop Rock define hip-hop and underground urban hip-hop? Do The Shins define indie rock? Simply, no, I don't think so. People are hard to categorize by genres, just as their music is. How could a person who appreciates multiple genres be limited to one respective subculture? Is it a crime for a goth to like TV on the Radio? If music defined the subculture, there would be a million subcultures, one for each unique identity. And what about the people who just like music? The people who generally belong to a culture and not a subculture? People with diverse tastes would be unclassifiable if music really summed up a person. Each man or woman has an identity that no one can duplicate.

Macworld 2007 doesn't mean anything to me

So, Macworld San Francisco saw Steve Jobs' keynote address. Breakdown of the subjects:

• Apple TV


• iPhone, with Cingular partnership


• New and improved iPod


• Apple Computer, Inc. is now Apple, Inc.

I can't say that I would want the Apple TV. I don't intend to ever buy content from the iTunes store, so paying $300 for a box to stream iTunes media to a TV is obviously a bad idea.

The iPhone, on the other hand, looks sweet. Oh my God, what a beauty. I was skeptical that Apple would actually produce a cell phone, but wow. Take a look at the current series of phones, and the iPhone looks so much better. Bu I would never spend $500+ on any cell phone, and I definitely wouldn't want to sign a two-year contract with Cingular. Even if the iPhone has some sweet features (no plastic buttons!), it's economically too expensive - both in explicit costs and implicit costs. Not only would I be spending a far-fetched amount of cash on a cell phone that I wouldn't use all that much (even with the MP3 player built into it), But I already have hundreds of cheap minutes on my Tracfone that has no monthly fee attached.

Notably missing from the keynote was a mention of Mac OSX Leopard. The Mac fanboys, what with Windows Vista's imminent arrival January 30, have been itching to pick a fight with the new kid on the block. Apparently announcing the arrival of new consumer electronics was more important than bolstering the reputation of the Macintosh operating system.

Microsoft as a corporation

Are corporations really evil? Do "the corporations" want to brainwash you, control the media, and make themselves rich?

Do you really believe that?

As a student of economics, hearing people say stuff like, "Linux is better because it's not controlled by a corporation, and Microsoft sucks," makes me want to cry. Let me explain why.

There re four main types of businesses in the United States: Sole proprietorships, partnerships, corporations, and limited liability companies. The difference between partnerships (and proprietorships) and corporations is that corporations are not dissolved when the owners depart, corporations have to file more information with the government, and corporations are treated like people in court. Limited liability companies are small businesses (possibly with only one member) that - as the name implies - have less liability than proprietorships. Creditors can claim the property or assets of the owners of proprietorships and partnerships if the businesses owned by them collapse, but LLCs are not vulnerable to this.

So what exactly makes corporations evil? That's a serious question I'm asking. What's wrong with corporations?

The purpose of businesses, excluding non-profit organizations, is to make money; let us not delude ourselves. Companies don't exist to make the world a better place or provide children with flowers. Proprietors, partners, corporations, and companies all want to make money. So how do you make money? Thornton Wilder wrote it most plainly:

"A million is made by producing something that everybody needs every day."
--Horace Vandergelder, The Matchmaker

These are examples of useful things: Computers, breakfast cereal, paper, clothes. Not coincidentally, all those things are manufactured and sold by corporations.

Let's talk about computers. A while back, I claimed that Microsoft had a monopoly on the desktop OS market for two reasons: Microsoft has patents with which it can threaten other companies, and Microsoft has deals with major PC manufacturers. However, I'm going to correct myself. Microsoft does not have a monopoly on the desktop OS market.

Patents are not necessarily an indicator of a monopoly. Microsoft may have patents on code inside Windows, but other companies have patents on software (IBM, NTP, etcetera.). Microsoft's patents haven't threatened the development of Linux, Apple OS, or other operating systems. That makes it apparent that having patents does not automatically make a company a monopoly.

Microsoft's deals with Dell, HP, and other companies also don't make Microsoft the only game in town. Nothing prevents a person from dual-booting Ubuntu or FreeBSD, and Microsoft sure as hell isn't going to stop Apple from bundling Apple OS with its computers. Also bear in mind that it's possible to get a refund from PC sellers if you can prove that you chose not to accept Microsoft's terms of use when Windows' license agreement was presented to you. If Microsoft persuades PC manufacturers from bundling copies of Linux, that is Microsoft abusing its position as an oligopolist, not a monopolist. A small number of operating systems dominates the market: Microsoft Windows, Apple OS, Ubuntu Linux, and a few others. Microsoft is not the only game in town. They are not preventing other organizations from building their own operating systems.

So the crucial question remains: Is Windows a bad product if Microsoft is a bad corporation? But is Microsoft a bad corporation? No. The simple truth is that Microsoft intends to reduce its costs to a point where they can no longer spend any less - Just like ever other business, Microsoft strives for its efficient point. The people who run Microsoft will do whatever they think will make them the most money for the least cost. To Microsoft, this means the addition of restrictions and exclusivity - all in the name of profit. Microsoft isn't out to hurt the consumer and sing praises to the RIAA. Rather, I blame this on stupidity. Microsoft is afraid of lawyers. Just look at the Zune: If Microsoft enabled song sharing, the Zune would be technologically superior to the iPod, and it would have launched with a bang. But afraid of the RIAA and its member organizations, one of the most powerful companies in the world folded to a media distribution company, Universal.

It sounds like Microsoft doesn't care about the users, right? As long as management signs the OEM deals, nothing else matters, right? Wrong. Like every other software company, Microsoft has to convince you that Microsoft software is the best. There are two reasons for this: First, Microsoft knows that if it doesn't update its operating system, customers can and will move to one that does. Second, Microsoft, like every other software company, makes money when its product sells. Updating the product is an incentive to buy new versions.

I'm not excusing Microsoft for it's "embrace, extend, and extinguish" policy, nor for its shady influence on other companies. Microsoft is only as honest as the people that run it; a downside of corporations is that they give unscrupulous people a shield, since corporations are regarded as persons in the eyes of United States law.

I'm not going to get into whether or not Linux is actually better than a commercial product due to its non-commercial nature. I wrote this essay, because arguing that corporations are evil is just silly. I recognize the consumerist attitude that makes up modern America, but it's not inherently evil. Most Americans (and citizens of much of the rest of the world) want to make a lot of money, and for some people, that means running a business. Corporations don't love you, but they don't hate you either. It's important to remember that corporations are made up of people.

The next-gen disk format fight is hardly over

Blu-Ray and HD DVD - the two biggest contenders in what will soon be the battle for 2007 and the following years in the home entertainment market. Some folks have declared that the battle is handily won, thanks to the introduction of the HD DVD decryption program for the PC, BackupHDDVD by a user named muslix64 on the Doom9 forum website. Some people will surely think that the ability to copy HD DVDs means that people will attract more consumers to the brand.

However, Sony isn't about to give up so easily. The Blu-Ray brand has a larger following in Japan than in the United States, for one thing. As crazy it might sound, also consider the PS3: Those who have brought PS3s have also bought built-in Blu-Ray players. Sony has sold around a million units, whether consumers know about Blu-Ray or not. Sony's willing to bet that they've got their foot in the door and can keep it there.

So what does the HD DVD brand have? It has "DVD" in the name. That's a sort of advertising you can't get from anywhere else. Consumers see DVDs and see HD DVDs, and the two connect - just like that. Though Blu-Ray may have greater storage capacity, people won't know what the hell a Blu-Ray is, but a HD DVD - Why, that must be an advanced DVD! HD DVD also has Microsoft, the richest corporation in the world, singing the praises of the HD DVD. With 80% of the PC market share, you can bet your donkey that Microsoft is going to have the last say in this fight.

Warner Bros. announced two days ago that they're going to produce a disc called Total HD, a disc comprised of a HD DVD disc and a Blu-Ray disc. That will no doubt further the length of the battle. Don't know which format to pick? Why not both?

So who's the real loser in this fight? Everybody. A likely outcome will be that both types survive. This whole thing will be a big headache for everyone for the next five years. There will be Blu-Ray and HD DVD apologists, separately. It'll be an extension of the ol' Windows vs. Apple OS holy wars. Both HD DVDs and Blu-Rays will occupy space on the high definition disc shelf at your local Best Buy or Circuit City - just like DVD-, DVD+, and DVD-RAM, except worse.

Everybody's going to suffer, because neither company was willing to back down - a classic outcome completely along the lines of game theory. Game theory is applied to economics when talking about oligopolies - a few companies that control most of the market share for specific markets. Sony and Toshiba are oligopolies in the HD disc industry, responsible for Blu-Ray and HD DVD respectively. Note the prisoner's dilemma. According to this version of game theory, there are two options for each player - aggressive and passive. When Toshiba and Sony are aggressive, both trying to push formats on consumers, they both profit, but by very little. When both companies are passive, co-operating with each other (and in this case allowing Warner Bros. to step in and develop both formats on a single disc), their profits will be higher than if they both try to win; allowing both formats to work with each other will give customers leeway and encourage them to choose either type. Now, what if Toshiba chooses to exit the HD DVD market, and Sony wins the day? Or vice versa? One company would then take the prize and leave the other guy with nothing; this is a very unlikely conclusion, as both companies know that there is profit to be had - But when both giants are trying to wrestle for it, the profits for each contestant won't be so impressive.

Digg needs a section for blogs

Digg is, of course, the popular news site - stories chosen by the masses ad promoted by the masses. The site has been lauded and hated alike, and Diggers are vocal participants in the phenomena known as Web 2.0. Digg is the most democratic of news aggregators, and Keven Rose and company have been covered by periodicals such as Time and The New York Times. The most important news is daily brought to the front page by the people who matter the most: The users.

But increasingly, Digg's democracy has discovered entropy: Bugs in the system, glitches in reality. Occasionally, Digg doesn't work the way it's supposed to. More and more, people are submitting stories about blog entries - Gasp! The horror! Digg is being invaded by blogs!

Seriously, many blogs don't constitute news. The problem with the Digg website is that there's no section for blogs: News blogs have to go in the Political Opinion section, and Linux blogs have to go in the Linux section - even though neither are categorically newsworthy. Then there are the rumor blogs - you know, the ones that say, "G.W.Bush executed Saddam Hussein so Hussein couldn't testify to Bush's plot to take revenge for his father," or, "The Linux kernel was written by Steve Wozniak, not Linus Torvalds!"

The Digg team has recently introduced new categories to the website: Podcasts and Videos. Wouldn't it make sense to then add a Blogs section, as well? Many blogs simply aren't about news, as the News category might suggest. Separate the wheat from the chaff, and everyone will be happy; the blogosphere won't bother the news junkies, and vice versa. The Blogs section could even mirror the News section and all its categories, to satisfy the news blog junkies.

This would eliminate complaints about the presences of blogs on the front page of the News section. The new Videos section has worked very well thus far: There have been virtually no videos submitted to the News section since, and everyone is satisfied. Why can't the same be done for blogs?

One Apple fanboy in particular

As a devoted Digger through and through, as I have been for some time now, I am fascinated by one particular character from a cast crazier than Gene Wilder, Zero Mostel, and Richard Pryor all put together: Daniel Eran Dilger. The man seems to hate Microsoft for no apparent reason, other than that it's more successful than Apple - the jewel in Dilger's eye.

I first heard of Dilger when hundreds of Diggers in September Dugg a story about how recently announced iTV would change television. My first reaction was, Huh? Would a box with mysterious features really conquer the tube, which we all know to be the gospel? I wasn't very impressed by his article - no more so than I was with Mr. Dilger, who goes by Daniel Eran on his blog. (Eran is his middle name.) For some reason, one guy was calling himself a magazine. (Does that mean I'm a magazine, too? I have a blog!)

What astounded me was Dilger's absolute awe in able Apple's apposition. To Mr. Dilger, Apple is the gospel, the ultimate revelation. Dilger's series of essays on the iTV were speculative at best and unfounded at worst. To be fair, plenty of his other essays have some semblance of fact or solid base, but I did not see anything decent in my first impression. Practically every one of his entries mentions Microsoft - usually in ridicule. While the company undoubtedly deserves a number of lashes, Mr. Dilger seems to attack Microsoft for doing anything at all. It's sort of like beating a dead cow. He's even criticized Microsoft for building the Zune with a screen bigger than the iPod's. Mr. Dilger is at war with Microsoft, or so it seems.

One of his more questionable claims is that success of the Xbox 360 is a myth - an illusion of football players, guns, magic, and sorcery. Apparently selling 8 million units in one year is disappointing. The PS2 sold more units: Three million more! But Dilger doesn't quite seem to understand the console market: Note that last year, Sony sold 20 million PS2 units worldwide. (I'm using his source, from PC vs. Console.) With the arrival of the PS3, is has all but looked like the end of the PS2's life cycle: The Xbox 360 has been on the market for one year, and the PS2 six. The PS2 is an established brand with tons of games. The Xbox 360? One year, definitely not as many games. The reputation of a six-year-old console will bulldoze a newbie. In 2007, we'll see a lot more sales of the Xbox 360, with the arrival of Xbox 360 exclusives and other big wig games. Year two will be big for the Xbox 360, and the next three years will see plenty of Xbox 360 sales. Video game consoles have life cycles of five to six years: The PS2 came out in 2000, and the PS3 2006; the Xbox came out in 2001, and the Xbox 360 2005 (an unusually short lifespan of four years). Also, is it just me, or did Dilger compare a game console to a portable music player? That really doesn't make much sense at all.

But aside from the content, I tend to view Dilger negatively, because it seems someone has been gaming Digg. A Digger even compiled a list of likely fake users, controlled by a real person to artificially inflate the Digg count for Dilger articles. Furthermore, at some point in late November or early December, the Digg team blocked stories originating from RouglyDrafted.com. Dilger cried foul and for a short time appended each of his blog entries with a short, sordid tale of special interest groups like Microsoft paying Digg to censor Mr. Dilger. Excuse me if a claim like that doesn't raise his credibility. (All those appendices are gone, but they were amusing for a week or two.) Daniel Eran then moved to NewsTrust.net. He subsequently started reviewing his own essays, giving them favorable ratings without fail. Integrity, shmegrity. That sure puts to rest any doubts that at one point or another, Dilger was indeed Digging his own stories under different pseudonyms.

I don't like Daniel Dilger. I'm not fond of any fanboys, but Dilger takes the cake as the biggest Apple fanboy with the least amount of integrity. To my knowledge, Dilger has never admitted to Digging his own stories, but it seems pretty certain that he did it.