Al Gore Invented the Internet; HP Invented Angry Birds

April 15, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Peter VesterbackaI stumbled upon a video titled, “HP Startup Case Study: Angry Birds, Rovio Mobile Ltd.” The description states in part, “Born out of a mobile game development competition sponsored by HP, the story of Rovio provides one case study of the role HP has played with successful startups.”

Sounds good, right? It reads like HP was integral in the success of the company behind Angry Birds and this video will tell that story. But upon watching the video, it turns out HP actually did very little for the company. Peter Vesterbacka, the current Chief Marketing Officer of Rovio, was an HP employee who in 2003 organized a competition to build the best possible mobile multiplayer game. This was done to spur developer interest in the first smartphones, of which HP was a player in that very young market. The winners of the competition later came to Vesterbacka for advice and they all ended up forming the company which eventually developed the game Angry Birds. Yes, the HP-sponsored competition did bring together the people who eventually developed the most successful mobile game in history – but that’s pretty much the extent of HP’s involvement.

The delicious irony is that the success of Angry Birds had nothing to do with HP’s involvement in the smartphone market. It was only because of Apple’s iPhone was the technology available and the market created that made the enormous popularity of Angry Birds possible. The same Apple iPhone that blew up the Old World of smartphones and made HP a virtually insignificant player in the smartphone market of today.

Vesterbacka himself admits that without Angry Birds, Rovio would likely no longer exist. Which is basically saying that Apple had more to do with the success of the company than HP did. How’s THAT for a case study!?

Filed Under: Technology

You’ve Got to be Bold to Say That

April 14, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Meridith Valiando BlackberryThere is a commercial on TV for the BlackBerry Bold phone where the main subject claims she gets a thousand e-mails a day and then “boldly” proclaims, “try writing a thousand e-mails on a touch screen”. The absurdity of writing a thousand e-mails a day on anything, much less a phone, has been thoroughly dissected already. But I found her statement to be especially ironic, considering that some BlackBerry phones have been released with touch screens in the past – really poorly implemented touch screens!

I’ve been using messaging devices since the original BlackBerry, the 950, back around the year 2000/2001. I’ve used or tested a multitude of PDAs and smartphones since that time. I have a lot of experience with various hard key and touch screen interfaces. I myself was an advocate of hard buttons and was very concerned about the original iPhone interface. But 4 years after the introduction of the iPhone, I find that there is little functional difference between the various BlackBerry hard-button keyboards and the iPhone touch screen keyboard. It really comes down to practice and user experience. I’ve seen people cranking out text messages with one hand on an iPhone. I’ve also seen people rapidly tapping away on a BlackBerry. Bottom line, attempting to downplay the iPhone by attacking their touch screen interface is a pretty desperate play by BlackBerry, not to mention ineffective. And by doing so in such an absurd manner that invites easy criticism, it calls into question their credibility.

Try typing a thousand e-mails on a touch screen? Sure, no problem. Unless it is on a BlackBerry touch screen!

 

 

 

Filed Under: Technology

Commerce Clause Run Amok

April 14, 2012 by 7 Comments

Commerce ClauseI was recently asked, “in your view, may Congress regulate the public airwaves or is that beyond the scope of the so-called Commerce Clause?” This question was in reference to the power of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, given that radio and TV broadcasts are interstate in nature. I started to respond to this question, but then decided it would be much better to write an article covering this, as it brings up a whole slew of issues. The interstate commerce clause is actually a very relevant topic right now with the “Obamacare” law being debated in the Supreme Court, which makes writing this article all the more timely.

In general, my answer to any question about the federal government’s authority always begins by reviewing the powers enumerated in the Constitution (Article I, Section 8; or any applicable amendment). Is such power explicitly given to congress? If not, then the answer is no, they do not have that authority. This process is supported by the 10th Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” So let’s look at the question using this process.

The first question that needs to be answered is how to classify the “airwaves”. Are they commerce or are they communication? Obviously, this answer will skew the discussion, so let’s explore both scenarios.

Let’s first take the viewpoint that radio transmissions (whether this is commercial radio, TV, HAM, shortwave, etc.) are primarily forms of communication. Obviously, the founders could not have imagined radio-based broadcasting, so we can’t look for that specifically in the Constitution. However we do find that there is no mention of regulating any form of communication in the enumerated powers or amendments. So we must first accept the idea that the founders did not want communication to be regulated by the federal government. And this idea is supported by the first amendment, where the freedom of speech and the press (which is the closest thing to broadcasting of the time) were specifically protected. So from the viewpoint of communications, the answer is clearly that the federal government can not regulate radio and TV broadcasts.

Next, we consider if the “airwaves” are a form of commerce. Without going into too much detail, I think it is quite a stretch to say that the transmission of radio signals is primarily a form of commerce. For purposes of this discussion, the only real evidence needed is that the “airwaves” can be used for private communication where no commerce is involved at all. But in the strict sense of regulating interstate commerce, ignoring for the moment the spirit of limited government inherent in the Constitution, maybe the federal government could regulate only those transmissions where commerce was being transacted, but no more. And they could only regulate the commerce being transacted, not the underlying technology. But even this very limited allowance of regulation would open a whole can of worms as to what exactly defines the commerce. For example, if I’m listening to the radio, am I engaging in commerce with the radio station? I’m not sending them any money so how is that commerce? If it’s not commerce, then how can it be regulated? Does the simple fact that commerce exists “somewhere” in the operation of a radio or TV station give the government the power to regulate everything around that commerce? If so, that’s a very slippery slope, because commerce exists in almost everything – in effect we could say that there is nothing out of the reach of federal regulation because commerce touches everything.

It shouldn’t be shocking that many people do in fact think that nothing is out of the reach of federal regulation. The country has become acclimated to a multitude of government regulations and programs, many of which use the interstate commerce clause as the basis for government authority – predictably creating the very slippery slope scenario that I reference above. But what if we don’t ignore the spirit of limited government in the Constitution and re-examine if the interstate commerce clause does in fact give the federal government the authority commonly claimed? We should start by reading the clause as written in the Constitution, “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes”

Any discussion of the interstate commerce clause must revolve around the basic question: can congress regulate commerce itself, or only the mechanisms of commerce among the states? The whole of the commerce clause begins by giving the federal government the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, which is to say they can do things like impose tariffs, create import regulations, etc. In other words, they can regulate the mechanisms of foreign commerce. It would be ludicrous to think that this clause gives the United States government the authority to regulate businesses in foreign countries. Continuing in the same clause, they are given power to regulate commerce “among the several states”. Would it not be rational to conclude that in a clause giving power to regulate the mechanisms of commerce with foreign nations, the same clause would also apply similar power to the mechanisms of commerce among the states – not an overarching power to regulate commerce itself?

I would also argue that if this clause were in fact meant to give the federal government the power to regulate people and business, that purpose and those powers would be more explicitly and clearly enumerated, probably in a clause all of its own. The founders were very concerned with the possibility that the Constitution would be construed in ways to expand government power beyond what was enumerated. The entire process that culminated in the Bill of Rights was in very large part due to these concerns. The founders and states were very fearful of big government and making the leap from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution caused worry that it would create a federal government with too much power. It is easy to see the spirit of the Constitution was about explicitly defining and limiting the power of the federal government. So does it make sense that a clause would be included that gives the federal government carte blanche to regulate business in any way it sees fit? It is no leap of faith to say that the founders had no intention of the federal government getting involved in regulating business. What faster route to oppression than a government that can manipulate and control the economy of a country?

It is often argued that the reason for giving the federal government the power to regulate commerce “among the several states” was so that the states would not create trade restrictions among themselves. By taking this power away from the states, an interstate “free trade zone” would be created, heading off potential conflict between the states as well as encouraging interstate commerce. It was not intended to give the federal government the power to regulate the economy. This argument is bolstered by the fact that it wasn’t until Roosevelt’s New Deal that the interstate commerce clause was extensively used as the basis for far-reaching federal law. Had the interstate commerce clause been intended for overall economic regulation, why did it take nearly 150 years for this power to be exercised (abused?) to the level it has for the last 80?

Obviously, the federal government regulates the “airwaves” almost completely today, as well as enforcing volumes of law and regulations in other areas of commerce and society. Let’s not fall into the trap of assuming that just because they are doing it today, that they are doing it legally, or that they SHOULD be doing it. This is why I have put the word “airwaves” in quotes throughout. What exactly are “airwaves” and what makes them “public?” These are definitions that the government has created, which conveniently seems to support their rationale for regulating radio transmissions. But the reality is that the government has no authority to control the “airwaves,” as I and many others have shown.

Faced with this idea, often the next argument rationalized is that regulation of the airwaves is something that the federal government should do, and is in our best interest anyway. To the contrary, it is entirely possible and likely that free enterprise would have solved the challenges of radio communication independent of government regulation, and would have done it much more efficiently and fairly than the FCC. We just need to look at the regulatory-free rise of the personal computer and the Internet for evidence that things like this can happen. But regardless, the argument is largely irrelevant if government regulation violates the Constitution – unless one is advocating ignoring the Constitution, which is the slipperiest of all the slopes.

Any discussion about the interstate commerce clause introduces a host of difficult considerations for many people, as it has so often been used as the basis for federal regulations for the last 80 years. Could the government have been so wrong? Does it continue to be wrong? It is almost too much to comprehend. In order to productively discuss the commerce clause, we must be open to the idea that the possibility exists that government has applied this clause incorrectly to justify past legislation. I’m not asking that you agree that the government has been wrong – just that the possibility exists. Because if you open your mind to this possibility, you also open your mind to the possibility that they may be wrong in the future.

Filed Under: Liberty, Technology

iPhone Envy

March 15, 2012 by 1 Comment

A TV commercial from US Cellular has a woman saying, “I don’t need a phone that does more. I need a phone company that does more.” The first time I saw that commercial, my reaction was, “yeah, US Cellular, just keep telling yourself that.” But I thought about it a little more and I figured they really can’t say much else when they aren’t carrying the iPhone.

For all the hype about raw sales figures that show more Android phones being sold than Apple iPhones, it seems that carriers just can’t wait to sell the iPhone. Why is there such a seeming contradiction? One reason perhaps is that many raw sales figures take into account free and half-price phone giveaways, skewing the reality of demand. It could also be the fact that only AT&T could sell the iPhone before February of last year – and even though Verizon got the phone in February, it wasn’t until October that sales really ramped up with the latest iPhone release plus Sprint’s entry into the iPhone market. But those facts are only a small part of the story. The overwhelming motivation for carriers to sell the iPhone is those that don’t are losing customers to those that do. But don’t take it from me. The “have-not” carriers are not mincing words when it comes to this fact.

Sprint CEO Dan Hesse told CNN Money back in October that prior to Sprint getting the iPhone, the number 1 reason customers were leaving Sprint was because it didn’t sell the iPhone. Count me and my wife in on those figures. In June of 2009, after being with Sprint for 10 years and having no real issues with their service, we had no choice but to switch to AT&T to get the iPhone. Hesse also had the following quotes: “Apple is arguably the best global brand in the tech space.” “Do you want to be with them or bet against them?” “Our expectation is this [the iPhone] will be the most profitable device we’ve sold. We expect this to be quite accretive to our cash flow over time.”

T-Mobile CEO Philipp Humm said recently, “Not carrying the iPhone led to a significant increase in contract deactivations in the fourth quarter of 2011.” He also stated that T-Mobile will invest $4 billion to modernize its network so that the carrier will “be compatible with a broader range of devices, including the iPhone.”

It’s no wonder T-Mobile is so hot-to-trot to get the iPhone. For everything that Sprint said in October, the proof in in the pudding. Sprint announced in February that after getting the iPhone, they had their biggest customer base growth in six years, its average revenue per user rose by the highest rate in wireless industry history, and they posted their best-ever rate of lost customers. Sprint also stated that 40% of the company’s iPhone sales went to new Sprint customers. I wonder where those new customers came from? I’m sure some from AT&T and Verizon, but I wonder how many also came at the expense of T-Mobile … and US Cellular?

US Cellular claims that they actually turned down the opportunity to carry the iPhone because it didn’t make financial sense. So I guess their move is to differentiate their network. The question is does it matter? How much better does a carrier need to be for a customer to choose it over another carrier – especially when they are making the choice between an iPhone or none. It’s to be seen, but US Cellular just reported their subscriber base shrank from 6.07  to 5.89 million last year.

For what it’s worth, I think US Cellular is doing an excellent job marketing the differentiation of their network. Most of their commercials are simple to understand and make a clear point of their claims. They are also rolling out innovative service packages and incentives for their customers. I’ve thought to myself that IF all else were equal I would certainly entertain switching to US Cellular. But that “IF” is an iPhone-sized “IF” and it makes all the difference in the world.

Filed Under: Technology

It’s Women, Stupid!

March 3, 2012 by 3 Comments
Dr. Pepper 10

Hi! I just killed any chance this product had! Catchphrase!

Over the last couple of months, I’ve seen an ad on TV for Dr. Pepper 10, where they literally come out and say that their drink is not for women. “You can keep the romantic comedies and lady drinks. We’re good.” Assuming they continue with this marketing campaign for the life of the product, who wants to start taking bets how soon this soda gets pulled from the shelves or rebranded?

With the exception of some obvious examples that are truly only for men, you take your product’s life into your own hands when you attempt to market it as “not for women”. It’s no secret that women make the majority of buying decisions in this country, especially when it comes to food. Hey Dr. Pepper! Who do you think is bringing the soda home that men drink? Epic fail in 3 … 2 … 1…

But I could really give a flying flip about soda. You might as well be mainlining sugar or drinking anti-freeze, but I digress. So let’s bring this topic around to something that I do care about.

A lot of tech pundits still to this day are dumbfounded as to how Apple’s products such as the iPhone, iPad, and Mac have come to dominate the tech industry. To me, it’s fairly obvious. Most so-called “experts” still live in the “Old World of Technology”, where tech specs such as processor speed, screen size, quantity and variety of ports, support of every possible bleeding edge platform or protocol, and any number of other fairly trivial “features” are what define good technology. They have failed to grasp that the rest of the world has embraced the “New World of Technology” which is defined by products and services that are not only powerful, but also easy-to-use, reliable (wow is reliability important), and above all are empowering to the end-user. Yet interwoven into the rise of the New World of Technology (and it’s not just Apple) is an oh-so-subtle, yet completely game-changing phenomenon. One that is actually so obvious once it is noticed, I’m truly surprised more hasn’t been written about it. The world of technology has changed forever for one simple reason – It’s Women, Stupid!

Yes, I hate to break it to you guards of the Old World of Technology (i.e. men that have been into or working with technology for the last 30 or more years), but women have crashed our party and there’s no going back. Fittingly, it is women that have opened the proverbial Pandora’s box. And I’m not talking about the Pandora Radio service and app – although that is ironically one example of a New World technology that women are gravitating to – but I digress once again. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist (or should I say a computer engineer) to see that where most women didn’t carry smartphones, they do now. Where women didn’t spend a lot of time on computers, they ignited and now power the spread of social media. Where women didn’t buy a lot of software, they now are pouring money into apps. The world has changed, gentlemen, but instead of fighting it, I say embrace it. In this case, Pandora’s box didn’t contain the evils of the world, but rather the future of technology. And seriously, what party couldn’t use more women?

To the women of the world, on behalf of the entire technology industry, I say welcome! But first let me apologize for shutting you out for so long. I know it’s cliche, but it wasn’t you, it was us. We simply didn’t make products and services that appealed to women – to most of the world, actually. That was our fault. But we’ve entered the New World of Technology and we’re glad you’re not only along for the ride, but helping us drive forward. Please, pay no attention to the Dr. Peppers of the world, wherever they may appear. They’ll figure it out, eventually.

Filed Under: Life, Technology

Going Postal

March 3, 2012 by Leave a Comment
Pony Express

Hey, maybe this is better for customers too!

I’m sure most of you have seen the commercial the US Postal Service has been running on TV lately. The one where they say, “A refrigerator has never been hacked. An on-line virus has never attacked a cork board.” When I first saw it, I honestly couldn’t believe what I was seeing. It was so ludicrous that I wondered if it was a joke. Sadly, it was no joke. The postal service wants to encourage businesses to send more paper statements and receipts. Perhaps their next commercial will encourage people to use typewriters instead of computers. Or horse-and-buggy instead of cars. Heck, let’s just stop using electricity too.

Again, this commercial is just so ludicrous, it really isn’t worthy of rebuttal. So I’ll just do it for pure entertainment. First, here is the transcript of the entire commercial:

A refrigerator has never been hacked. An on-line virus has never attacked a cork board. Give your customers the added feeling of security a printed statement or receipt provides – with mail. It’s good for business, and even better for your customers. For safe and secure ways to stay connected, visit USPS.com/mail.

Let’s start with the specifics. Sure, no refrigerators have ever been hacked. But how is this relevant? The premise of the commercial is that a printed statement or receipt is more secure – or at least it gives an added “feeling” of security. So the USPS is basically saying that e-mailed statements or receipts are at risk of being hacked. I wonder how they think this might happen exactly? I don’t believe there are any documented cases of private information being compromised from a “hacking” incident targeting e-mailed statements or receipts. If we follow the logic of the post office all the way through, computers are far too risky to store personal information. We might as well stop using computers altogether because they just might get hacked.

Similarly, they claim that viruses put e-mailed documents at risk. Really? Exactly how? Are there any documented cases of viruses that compromised private information through e-mailed statements or receipts? This is just the USPS grasping at straws. Basically, if we again use the logic the post office is offering, we should simply stop using computers for everything because the risk of viruses is simply too great.

Sending paper through mail is good for businesses? Simply ridiculous. Besides the cost of postage, paper, and ink, the labor and equipment to produce and mail out paper statements is significant. Smart businesses long ago recognized this and incentivized their customers to use electronic billing and statements instead. And are we really going to take business advice from an organization that is bleeding red ink?

Finally, this ad finishes up by saying that paper statements are good for customers and implies that postal mail is safe and secure. Sure, because printed statements contain no personal information that identity thieves love to get their hands on and envelopes are impregnable fortresses of privacy. No, here in the really-real world, postal theft and dumpster-diving are some of the most common ways that people become victims of identity theft. Experts highly recommend shredding documents with sensitive information on them before throwing them away, especially all the junk mail credit card offers. Of course, if you were receiving e-mailed statements you could just hit delete on your keyboard, but apparently paper is “better for customers”.

Overall, the premise of this commercial is just so bad that it is almost insulting. Who exactly does the USPS think this ad is going to convince? People who are still using postal mail aren’t the target of this commercial. People who switched to electronic statements aren’t likely to switch back. And businesses aren’t going to encourage their customers to go back to paper. This commercial really just makes the USPS seem pitiful and desperate. I can’t imagine that this commercial generates ANY consumer confidence.

The postal service needs to realize that the era of paper mail is ending and adjust their business model – which will be highly difficult as long as they are a quasi-governmental organization. They need to focus on package delivery and run commercials like the funny “creepy clown doll” commercial if they have any chance of surviving past this decade.

Filed Under: Technology

Welcome to Life, Liberty, and Technology!

March 3, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Hello. My name is Marcel Brown. Welcome to my new blog!

On this blog I will share with the world the multitude of thoughts and ideas that regularly bounce around my head. “Life” is a big topic and I will write about a number of seemingly random topics that interest me. That being said, two of the topics most important to me are liberty (or freedom) and technology. So besides the random topics that come to mind, a great deal of what I write will revolve around the concepts of liberty and technology – and the ever increasing intersection between the two.

I’m sure many people will consider some of my writing controversial – in fact I guarantee it! That’s just fine with me. Too often we hold back our opinions due to fear of what other people will think. So if you aren’t open-minded, this may not be the blog for you. But if you like to exercise your mind by reading opinions that are perhaps a bit out of the box, welcome! We may not always agree but at least it won’t be boring!

Filed Under: Liberty, Life, Technology
« Previous Page