Top Posts
I love how Gabe uses Glassboard as a sort of private-single-use Facebook, with privacy. I think this would be a great thing for my family too — and plan on setting it up. I called for suggestions on how others are using Glassboard, so I am glad I came across this post from Gabe. One…
I love how Gabe uses Glassboard as a sort of private-single-use Facebook, with privacy. I think this would be a great thing for my family too — and plan on setting it up.
I called for suggestions on how others are using Glassboard, so I am glad I came across this post from Gabe. One thing that I didn’t know was just how robust the website offering is. I’m in.
“I’m not a fan of software patents, but I am a fan of ethical and respectful business practice.” — Garrett Murray
A great article from the Esquire archives that polled celebrities in the summer of 1969 and asked them what they would say if they were first on the moon. My favorite is Truman Capote’s: “So far so good.” Of course Neil Armstrong topped them all — may he rest in peace.
A great article from the Esquire archives that polled celebrities in the summer of 1969 and asked them what they would say if they were first on the moon. My favorite is Truman Capote’s: “So far so good.”
Of course Neil Armstrong topped them all — may he rest in peace.
Specifically the Lemon Verbena scented soap. I wish this was made in a foaming soap, but I like it so much that I don’t really care that it isn’t foaming. Actually what I really like about it is the clean scent it leaves behind — not over powering like other soaps, just enough that it…
Specifically the Lemon Verbena scented soap. I wish this was made in a foaming soap, but I like it so much that I don’t really care that it isn’t foaming. Actually what I really like about it is the clean scent it leaves behind — not over powering like other soaps, just enough that it is there for a bit.
[I buy mine by the 6-pack](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000E75ES2/ref=nosim&tag=brooksreview-20).
If I can’t get this hand soap, and/or I want a foaming soap, my back up is [this Method soap](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00660CVUA/ref=nosim&tag=brooksreview-20). It doesn’t smell as nice, but it’s a solid #2 offering.
[Jim Dalrymple](http://www.loopinsight.com/2012/08/27/the-innovation-argument/): >What Apple’s win prohibits Samsung, and others, from doing is blatantly copying Apple’s design. There is nothing in the ruling that says Samsung can’t continue to innovate. Great post from Dalrymple that perfectly shows just how far “news” outlets are willing to stretch the truth to craft the perfect anti-Apple headline for their…
[Jim Dalrymple](http://www.loopinsight.com/2012/08/27/the-innovation-argument/):
>What Apple’s win prohibits Samsung, and others, from doing is blatantly copying Apple’s design. There is nothing in the ruling that says Samsung can’t continue to innovate.
Great post from Dalrymple that perfectly shows just how far “news” outlets are willing to stretch the truth to craft the perfect anti-Apple headline for their stories.
As I’ve said, the most interesting part of this verdict is going to be to watch how Google and its “partners” react. So far, here are the reactions I have seen from Google and Samsung.
[Google](http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/26/3270837/google-responds-apple-samsung-verdict):
>The court of appeals will review both infringement and the validity of the patent claims. Most of these don’t relate to the core Android operating system, and several are being re-examined by the US Patent Office.
Roughly translated means: “These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.”
[Samsung’s internal memo on the case has several interesting points in it](http://9to5mac.com/2012/08/27/youve-seen-apples-internal-memo-to-employees-on-the-verdict-now-heres-samsungs/):
>We initially proposed to negotiate with Apple instead of going to court, as they had been one of our most important customers.
To me this opening salvo sounds massively important. “Had been” a customer? So is Samsung cutting off the supply of iOS device parts to Apple, or is Apple shifting to not use suppliers that also compete with them?
We’re not talking about a few small parts, we are talking about multi-billion dollar business deals. So is Samsung letting it out that not only do they owe Apple a billion dollars, but now they have effectively lost Apple’s business? That would be devastating news to Samsung’s stock.
>The NDCA verdict starkly contrasts decisions made by courts in a number of other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, and Korea, which have previously ruled that we did not copy Apple’s designs. These courts also recognized our arguments concerning our standards patents.
“The U.S. is just being an ass.”
>History has shown there has yet to be a company that has won the hearts and minds of consumers and achieved continuous growth, when its primary means to competition has been the outright abuse of patent law, not the pursuit of innovation.
Huh? This seems horribly made up. Further, what’s Samsung’s innovation: being lightening fast at copying the market leader?
>We trust that the consumers and the market will side with those who prioritize innovation over litigation, and we will prove this beyond doubt.
To me I read this as: If Apple continues to succeed, then consumers clearly want innovative products, and we will prove this by starting to lose money and make products that are not innovative, and therefore are products no one wants.
Sometimes it’s just best to keep your mouth shut, or remain vague. Two things Samsung *should* have copied from Apple.
#### Update
[Just saw this piece from Seth Weintraub, which argues that this is about more than Samsung](http://9to5mac.com/2012/08/26/can-google-claim-apples-win-doesnt-relate-to-the-core-android-os-when-nexus-s-got-hit-hard/) — it reaches into Android too. As Weintraub notes with the findings against some Nexus phones:
>These are software patents and there is no Samsung in pure Android software.
Ouch, if I am an Android “partner”, I am calling Apple and then Microsoft today.
I have been thinking a lot about Amazon and the future impact that online retailers will have on commercial real estate — an industry that I work in for my “day job.” More specifically, I’ve been thinking about whether or not Amazon is going to hamper the ability to refill vacancies in commercial shopping centers.…
I have been thinking a lot about Amazon and the future impact that online retailers will have on commercial real estate — an industry that I work in for my “day job.” More specifically, I’ve been thinking about whether or not Amazon is going to hamper the ability to refill vacancies in commercial shopping centers.
With each passing month, I fall more on the pessimistic side that Amazon is indeed already slowing the commercial real estate recovery. We can see this not only with consumer electronics stores and bookstores, but I think we will begin to see this more and more with any type of store that you would normally “pop” into — meaning a store that you don’t seek out, but rather a store that you stop by because it was on your way. Amazon is the reason I have been shopping in stores less often, I mean the UPS driver knows me.
The funny thing is, Amazon isn’t really competing on price with traditional stores. If you look at the cost of goods on Amazon and then in a store, Amazon’s prices may look cheaper, but once shipping is added, (yes, a Prime membership changes this aspect) they usually wash out to be the same — often you barely save much buying on Amazon. ((Yes, there are always exceptions.))
Amazon is not trying to sell consumers on the idea of shopping with Amazon. Instead, Amazon is attempting to make shopping with them a better experience than in a store, and they are doing this by changing your habits.
Amazon has done this, as best I can tell, by focusing on three key areas:
1. Impossibly cheap shipping (no periods on a non-sentence list)
2. Impossibly fast shipping
3. Consumer trust
These three things are paramount to the success that Amazon is seeing right now, and that Amazon will see in the future.
### Cheap Shipping
If Amazon shipping wasn’t cheap, people wouldn’t buy from them; it’s that simple. By making shipping inexpensive, Amazon is showing value to consumers who have purchased from any other online retailer and paid for shipping that is either twice the cost, and four times slower.
By giving “pro” level users the ability to pay a cheap, annual fee for free two-day shipping, and low-priced one-day (and sometimes same-day) shipping, Amazon is compelling users to shop more on their site. Think of it this way: if I am a Prime member and see something cool for $10 on Amazon, there is a high probability I will just buy it right then and there. It is too easy and shipping is “free,” so why not? Whereas, if I don’t shop at Amazon and I see something (or hear about something) cool and I want to buy it, it is rare that I would get in my car and go straight to the store.
That’s a powerful change in habits: buying right away online because it is easy and fast, versus the hassle of going to a physical place to buy something. Amazon is saving users time, energy, and aggravation — and both Amazon and consumers know it. Of course this is not limited to Amazon, but we’ll get to why Amazon excels at this when others don’t in just a bit.
### Fast Shipping
Amazon doesn’t just use fast shipping services, they fulfill items lightening-fast, using the closest warehouse to ship the item to you. Add to all of this the fact that in certain areas (and Amazon is adding more warehouses in more locations) you can get same-day delivery if you order early enough in the day, and you can see that Amazon is removing any reason a person has to get in his car and hassle with going to a “real” store.
Again, powerful stuff. Amazon is making everything an easy, impulse purchase — a dangerous thing for everyone’s wallet.
### Consumer Trust
Of the three strengths that I listed for Amazon, I personally think that consumer trust is the most interesting aspect.
Remembering back to my early days on the Internet, I remember how I desperately wanted to sign up for AOL. My mom was actually OK with me doing so, and her paying for it, **but** she didn’t want to use a credit card. She didn’t trust AOL with her credit card information. I actually had to call my dad, who had an MSN account, and have him convince my mom that it was safe to give AOL her credit card information.
Fast forward to today and I have three credit cards stored with Amazon, all of my shipping addresses stored, and all that data can be used to purchase just about anything if you know my password.
I’ve never once felt insecure about that.
The sheer size and volume that Amazon sells everyday shows that I am not alone in blindly trusting Amazon — everyone I know does. And yet this is only one part of the trust that Amazon has earned with consumers.
The second facet of trust is ever more fascinating: I trust Amazon to do right by me. I know that I can return something to Amazon and it won’t be a hassle. I trust that the quality of the item is vaguely well-represented in the reviews by other users. But more than all of that, I trust that Amazon has a comparable price for that item, so I don’t need to comparison shop elsewhere.
As a consumer, as a geek, as a person, I just trust Amazon. How many other retailers can you say that about — physical or otherwise? I can only say that about a handful of other retailers, and that makes Amazon a powerful force — even more powerful than cheaper pricing would be.
### Amazon’s Death Blow
I think all of this trust and shipping Kung Fu is leading to a massive shift in retailing over the next ten years. I don’t think there will be much of a reason for most general purpose stores. Your Best Buy, Fry’s, Gamestop, Radio Shack, etc., aren’t going to make it. They can’t compete with the convenience of Amazon, and they can’t house the items Amazon can. Plus, in my opinion, their employees are annoying — which only further encourages people to avoid shopping in person.
I don’t think it is all doom and gloom for retailing though — I think we are about to see significant shift to two types of retail stores:
1. “I need it right now” stores (7Eleven)
2. “I need to touch it, or be educated about it” stores (Apple Stores)
Essentially, I think Amazon is going to wipe out everyone that isn’t a niche player, or a store that sells goods that are of the need-it-now variety. What’s interesting is that I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing on the surface for retailers, but I worry about consumers if Amazon is allotted this kind of power.
If Amazon is successful in killing retailing, as we know it today (and they are hell-bent on doing so), who is to keep them in check when they are the *only* big online retailer?
What we need is an Amazon competitor. If for nothing else, so that we can keep Amazon as awesome as it is today.
Interesting read from Jean-Louis Gassée that refutes the notion that Samsung (and other Android devices) will now need to assess an Apple Tax on consumers for settling licensing and lawsuits. As Gassée points out, this is nothing new: > Last year, Apple and Nokia settled an IP “misunderstanding” that also resulted in a “Tax”…but it…
Interesting read from Jean-Louis Gassée that refutes the notion that Samsung (and other Android devices) will now need to assess an Apple Tax on consumers for settling licensing and lawsuits. As Gassée points out, this is nothing new:
> Last year, Apple and Nokia settled an IP “misunderstanding” that also resulted in a “Tax”…but it was Nokia that played the T-Man role: Apple paid Nokia more than $600M plus an estimated $11.50 per iPhone sold. Where were the handwringers who now accuse Apple of abusing the patent system when the Nokia settlement took place?
He goes on to point out that Samsung is already paying huge sums per phone and tablet to Microsoft, yet no talk on a “Microsoft Tax” in the media.
Of course Nokia and Microsoft are not nearly as page-view-link-bait driven as bad mouthing Apple is, so there’s that.
I think the most interesting to thing to find out, right now, is what Google is saying (if they are saying anything) to their hardware “partners”. I mean think about it very carefully: Google owns Motorola and just watched Samsung be effectively bitch-slapped by a Jury. Is Google telling hardware partners to “keep calm and carry on”? Not likely.
And if Samsung is already paying Microsoft $10-15 per Android device, how much would it cost to just license Windows 8? It cannot be that big of a gap.
I was watching Twitter yesterday when the Apple vs. Samsung jury came back and announced its findings. The overall sentiment on Twitter was one of worry — mostly about the reaffirmation that this gives to litigation and the patent system itself. The worry is that with such sweeping victory, Apple now has massive power over…
I was watching Twitter yesterday when the Apple vs. Samsung jury came back and announced its findings. The overall sentiment on Twitter was one of worry — mostly about the reaffirmation that this gives to litigation and the patent system itself. The worry is that with such sweeping victory, Apple now has massive power over the patents they have and thus everyone should cower if cornered by Apple.
I think this assumption is dead wrong.
In order to believe this, you also have to believe that Apple wants to take you to court — they don’t. In fact, all Apple really seems to care about is not being ripped off — and really don’t we all care about this. It doesn’t appear to me that Apple is looking at every obscure patent they have and finding someone to sue, rather they are looking into products that they feel copy theirs.
[From Nilay Patel at *The Verge*, on the verdict](http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/24/3266571/apple-decisively-wins-samsung-trial-what-it-means):
>Perhaps most importantly, the jury ruled that many of Samsung’s infringements were “willful” — that is, the company deliberately copied Apple’s patents. That’s how they got to that $1.051 billion damage award; they punished Samsung for doing it on purpose.
In my opinion, from what I have read, this case was not about patents for Apple *or* the jury (it was for Samsung) — for both Apple and the jury this case was about copying an idea. The question that the jury answered for Apple, and for me, was: did Samsung copy Apple products, [or did they Remix Apple products](http://www.ted.com/talks/kirby_ferguson_embrace_the_remix.html)?
The jury came back and said: Samsung copied.
Furthermore, the jury came back and said that said copying *is* wrong. But we all knew it to be wrong the entire time.
Yes, the patent system is a fucked up mess to say the least, but I still very much believe that what Samsung has done is wrong no matter how you slice it.
So yes, I would like patent reform, but I am also very happy that *this* jury simplified the matter and handed out the correct verdicts. ((Though, the verdict sounds unlikely to stand, the judgment has more or less gotten the point across in the court of public opinion — something Apple really wanted.))
When I was talking with Myke on CMD+SPACE the other day, he mentioned his internal thought process on how he decides to support a site by becoming a member or not. After mentioning it I urged him to write it up, because his rationale is simply fantastic. This is that write, and I really don’t…
When I was talking with Myke on CMD+SPACE the other day, he mentioned his internal thought process on how he decides to support a site by becoming a member or not. After mentioning it I urged him to write it up, because his rationale is simply fantastic.
This is that write, and I really don’t want to spoil the criteria he uses so I do urge you to read it. What I really like about his logic is that it is all about the people behind things, and not the content itself — that sits well with me.
“It now expects those developers to continue supporting Twitter by syndicating content into its platform, but it no longer wants to provide any value to developers in return.” — Dustin Curtis
Rachel Metz in an interview with super-blogger-VC Fred Wilson, introduces the interview with this nugget: >Lately VCs haven’t come close to generating the returns on their investments that made them stars in the 1990s. It’s even becoming questionable what value they generate for society. IT companies are finding it cheaper than ever to get going…
Rachel Metz in an interview with super-blogger-VC Fred Wilson, introduces the interview with this nugget:
>Lately VCs haven’t come close to generating the returns on their investments that made them stars in the 1990s. It’s even becoming questionable what value they generate for society. IT companies are finding it cheaper than ever to get going now that they can rent computing resources from providers in the “cloud.” Meanwhile, alternative funding mechanisms are proliferating.
What a great opening salvo, particularly the second sentence about the value of VCs towards society.
Just three questions into the interview she asks Wilson what a “mediocre return” is for a VC, to which he responds:
>Anything less than three times your money over a 10-year period.
Correct me if I am wrong, but that’s a 30% return on your money every year for ten years — and anything less than that is considered too bad to want to continue with this?
Armed with that information, and the fast approaching seven year anniversary of Twitter, do you still wonder why Twitter is scrambling to make money?
Personally I don’t mind companies that take VC money, what I do mind is companies that take VC money that:
1. Don’t have any clue how to repay that money (no business model in place, or planned on);
2. That eventually allow the VCs to run the entire show.
Twitter is at fault, I believe, of both of those errors.
In case you don’t think it is possible to be VC funded and not let the VCs run the show — even when you don’t have the money stuff figured out — I would look no further than Facebook. Zuckerberg’s most impressive feat, to date, is the fact that he took Facebook through countless VC rounds and an IPO, all while still retaining control of the company. That is simply amazing.
Should be interesting to watch how venture capital changes with the explosive growth of Kickstarter (who is backed by VC money, no less).
“The irony is that by thinking small, Apple became the biggest company that ever was.” — Horace Dediu
Nick Heer translates AT&T’s BS press release: >You won’t *believe* how tightly we are threading our FaceTime policies through some loopholes we found. You are going to be amazed, where by amazed, we mean “totally pissed off”. I actually didn’t read the AT&T press release because I couldn’t keep from rolling my eyes long enough…
Nick Heer translates AT&T’s BS press release:
>You won’t *believe* how tightly we are threading our FaceTime policies through some loopholes we found. You are going to be amazed, where by amazed, we mean “totally pissed off”.
I actually didn’t read the AT&T press release because I couldn’t keep from rolling my eyes long enough to get through the first word. Heer’s translation is excellent.
I’ve been an AT&T subscriber for well over 14 years. No, really. I was pumped when the first iPhone was announced on Cingular (later changed to AT&T) and I have a completely unfounded hatred of using Verizon. ((I have a Verizon iPad, but only because AT&T’s LTE network is a joke.)) With the next iPhone coming out in a month or so, I have to say, that for the first time I just might switch to Verizon. ((Or T-Mobile as I am hearing more and more little birdies telling me that T-Mobile will get the iPhone this time around, what with the failed merger with AT&T. They are local, so might make a good choice for me.))
Literally no one in my family, or immediate network (save two good friends), are on Verizon — and yet I don’t know if I can stomach staying on AT&T. It’s not that AT&T has bad service, bad speeds, or bad prices ((All the networks have shitty prices.)) — it’s that AT&T Wireless has taken the Airline route to customer service, which I summarize as such:
> We stand to serve our customers, except only *we* know what our customers want. Should a customer want a new feature, we need to sit down and determine how much and how often we can charge them for that new feature — this should take no less than 6 months. Should our customers challenge us, we will slyly raise early termination fees to deter such dissension. Remember, we are AT&T, and the ultimate authority on what *you* actually need.
The problem is that mobile telephones and internet has moved from a luxury good, paid with disposable income, to a commodity. I have seen people sitting on the side of the road, freshly evicted from their apartment, chatting on their phones and texting. This is our priority — it’s no wonder that AT&T feels like they can treat us like shit.
So, maybe it’s time for a change this September. ((T-Mobile users, let me know how the service and network speeds are just in case what I am hearing is true. No way I go with Sprint, their commercials were in B&W — can’t imagine they have a fast network.))
> “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” > – [Edmund Burke](http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke#Misattributed) (maybe) If you want App.net to succeed, that is if you are morally or otherwise opposed to what Twitter is doing with its API, then why are you still actively or otherwise using Twitter? I’ve…
> “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
> – [Edmund Burke](http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke#Misattributed) (maybe)
If you want App.net to succeed, that is if you are morally or otherwise opposed to what Twitter is doing with its API, then why are you still actively or otherwise using Twitter?
I’ve stopped posting new updates. I’m only checking it a couple times a day. And if Twitter doesn’t do an about face I’ll be done with it very quickly. I’m giving them one last chance, but also slowing my usage to a crawl — imagine the power of the entire nerd community doing this. The easiest way to making Twitter take notice, is to remove your eyeballs from their advertising, and devalue the network by reducing the size of it.
The question is, are you willing to take action beyond just complaining about Twitter, on Twitter?