Exploring the impact of broadband and technology on our lives, our businesses, and our communities.
Apple is now worth more than Google. Last year, profits increased by 39% to almost $10 billion. That's a profit margin three times bigger than Hewlett-Packard. Over ten years, Apple profits have increased by more than 2,000%. Apple is bigger than Intel and Cisco.
The City of Wilson, North Carolina has a city-owned fiber network called Greenlight that is offering 20 megabit symmetrical Internet access for $54.95 a month. I think this qualifies as the fastest and cheapest services in North Carolina. If you tried to buy that level of service via DSL or cable, you would pay several times that, if you could even get it.
But wait, there's more! They have symmetric service tiers all the way up to 100 megabits. Very few people would need that much, but as I have noted previously, Design Nine continues to talk to businesses who want their home-based workers to have symmetric connections of 20-50 megabits, primarily to support HD videoconferencing. So the City of Wilson has something very few other communities can offer in terms of business relocation--the ability to work from home or to run a business from home, with very affordable, high performance connections.
One of the earliest deployments of broadband over power lines (BPL) was the City of Manassas, Virginia. But last week, the city voted to turn off the system. Manassas is an electric city, with its own electric utility department, which made it relatively easy for the city to try out the new technology several years ago. But the BPL service reached only a handful of households and businesses (a little over 500, or less than 4%) and was not able to compete with DSL and cable modem options.
The fundamental problem with BPL is that it is relatively expensive, and when you are finished with a BPL deployment, what you have is broadband over copper, with limited bandwidth and no easy way to upgrade. Kind of like DSL and cable modem services. Fiber becomes more compelling by the day, as the demand for capacity increases as video in all its forms becomes a more common application and as the cost of fiber networks continues to fall. Why spend a substantial portion of the cost of a fiber network on a very limited copper-based system?
The fundamental problem with BPL, from a community perspective, is that it does not enable economic development and jobs growth the same way that fiber does. If your economic development strategy is, "Come to our community, because we have anemic BPL," you are in trouble, because there are plenty of other communities competing with you that have already decided to go straight to fiber.
The NTIA has released the block grant and tract data for round two stimulus proposals, opening the door for incumbent challenges for those proposals.
An article over at TechCrunch raises an interesting question. The backlit iPad (and all LCD backlit displays) can be hard on the eyes when trying to read continuously for long periods of time (e.g. when reading a book). The Amazon Kindle uses a different display technology (e-ink) that is reflective rather than transmissive. Reflective displays work better outdoors and are more like books in the way they work. Paul Carr, the author of the article, argues that eye fatigue and multitasking distraction could turn the iPad into a device that actually discourages reading. Hard to say, but time will tell whether the iPad displaces books, other e-book readers, or both.
It was inevitable....an iPad-compatible vest. I'm not sure about the "sophisticated" adjective used in the ad. "Nerd central" comes to mind, though.
A D.C. court ruled against the FCC's attempt to regulate how Comcast manages its network. The ruling dates back to a 2008 order that FCC imposed on Comcast, which was slowing down high bandwidth file sharing for some of its customers.
This is not likely to please very many people. Consumer advocates think Internet service providers need more regulation--they are unhappy about this. And the big incumbent service providers--AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, TimeWarner, and others--are upset that the FCC tried this in the first place.
As I have written in the past, network neutrality can be achieved easily by changing the business model for delivering services, and without the overhead of government regulation. Open access networks like Utopia, The Wired Road, nDanville, Palm Coast FiberNET, and others already have network neutrality, and these networks got there by building a single high performance infrastructure shared by all providers. Consumers get competitive pricing with substantial cost reductions, and providers compete based on quality of service and price. Network neutrality is achieved at the contract level by having the network infrastructure managed by a neutral third party. Everybody wins, especially buyers of services.
Prices go down and innovation is greatest when you have a single, maximally sized market space with many buyers and sellers. This is very easy to do, and as I noted, it is already being done.
This article from Cory Doctorow is similar to a couple of other contrarian articles that have come out in the past week--they all complain about the perceived "closed" nature of the iPad and/or say that the iPad is not going to save the publishing business.
Doctorow complains that there is little opportunity to hack the iPad; he is coming at this criticism from a hardware perspective. He wants to be able to open it up and do stuff with innards, and talks about how great the Apple II was because you hack that to your hearts content. But I remember those days, and did a fair amount of hacking myself. While it was fun, hackers back then were still a minority, and they still are today. It is pretty hard to make something that weighs a pound and a half that you can hold in your lap AND take apart and mess around with. If Doctorow wants to hack stuff, well, that's what the Arduino is for. I would have killed for an Arduino back in the Apple II days. I don't really get his complaint here, as there is plenty of stuff that can be nicely hacked, but that's not the market Apple is going after.
But I would argue that the iPad is very open--from a software perspective, and one only need look at the three thousand plus applications that already run on the iPad. Most of these apps are being written by small, wrote it in my bedroom, software outfits--the very kind of "hacker" types that Doctorow claims are locked out by Apple. Before the end of 2010, there will be tens of thousands of apps for the iPad, because Apple has created great software development tools that make it really easy to write software for the iPad.
Doctorow, like Jose Vargas and many others, also insists that the iPad is not going to save "traditional" magazine and newspaper publishers. I agree, but I think they are missing the point. The iPad is not going to help magazines like Time and Newsweek. But Apple's end to end publishing model that includes the iPad and the iTunes Store makes it possible for almost anyone to go into the publishing business. And so the big traditional media rags like Time and Newsweek and many newspapers will continue their slow decline toward irrelevance. But in their place, a host of new publications, with new pricing models, new editorial and writing models, and more relevant content will take their place.
The iPad is not going to save traditional media, unless traditional media wants to change to adapt to the times. Instead, the iPad is going to be a boon to new media, in many forms--the written word, the drawn image, the video, the TV program, the game. We will not know the full extent of the iPad's influence for at least a couple of years, but I think its effects will be more far-reaching than the iPod.
Earlier this week, I wrote how Apple is forcing publishers to move away from Adobe's buggy Flash plug-in, which is used for multimedia content display. Today, this article comes out about how Apple's pricing for books in the new iPad bookstore has forced Amazon to change its pricing model. Amazon was telling book publishers what they could charge for ebooks using the Kindle distribution system. Publishers didn't like that, and Apple took a different approach, giving publishers more flexibility in setting the price of a book, and taking a straight revenue percentage for distributing.
Apple gets criticized for using its muscle to make deals, but the deals it makes usually end up benefiting both buyers and sellers. And the overall lesson is that Apple's general approach--open access to markets achieves success--is lesson that is slowly gaining headway in the broadband world.
[Cupertino, CA, 4/1] Apple Computer announced today that it had purchased a majority share of the Microsoft Corporation by buying virtually all founder Bill Gate's remaining stock. Gates has continued to be the single largest stockholder, with approximately 56% of the outstanding shares of the company. The transaction, estimated to be worth $30 billion, still leaves Apple with a substantial cash reserve of at least $10 billion.
Gates, the increasingly reclusive founder of Microsoft, has not been actively involved in the management of the company for some years. He and his wife, Melinda Gates, have been spending much of their time on philanthropic work via the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. A spokesperson for the Foundation indicated that the Gates' had already indicated they planned to give most of the funds to the Foundation to help with the two keystone projects promoted by the Gates: malaria remediation in Africa and improvements in American libraries.
Gates himself has made no comment about the sale, but a short statement was released that said in part, "In recent years I have become increasingly embarrassed at the slow pace of innovation in Microsoft, and when I saw the iPad announcement back in January, I realized the company I founded had really fallen behind. I decided it was time to sell my shares and try to do some good with the money."
An Apple spokesperson said there would not be many immediate changes in the way Microsoft will be run, but did indicate that Steve "Monkey Boy" Ballmer might want to polish up his resume. Apple said the only thing the Cupertino firm intended to do right away was to eliminate Internet Explorer. Apparently, within weeks, IE users will be notified via the AutoUpdate software that a new Web browser is available, and when the update is run, Apple's Windows version of Safari will be downloaded and installed, and IE will be deleted. The Apple spokesperson said, "IE is and always has been nothing but a hack, and there are millions of Web designers whose lives have been significantly shortened, to say nothing of damage to their mental health, by having to try to make their Web page designs work with that piece of crap."
Apple also indicated that while Microsoft Word and Microsoft PowerPoint would be phased out in favor of Apple's word processing and presentation software, Apple would keep Excel for the time being. "We did some research, and we found most major U.S. corporations would collapse if Excel was phased out. You cannot believe how many bad Excel macros have been written by 27 year olds with brand new Wharton School MBAs. I mean, the spaghetti code we saw in Excel spreadsheets was downright frightening. I don't how those companies keep running."
When asked about the purchase, Apple said their primary interest was in what they called the "bitter clinger" market. "There are tens of millions of Microsoft customers still using Windows 98, Windows 2000, and Windows XP. Ironically, using our virtualization software or third party virtualization software like VMware Fusion or Parallels, the 'bitter clinger' crowd can have a better experience running Windows on a Mac. I mean, Windows 98 kicks butt running in Parallels on a brand new 27" iMac."
On news of the announcement, Apple stock jumped $14 to a current high of $228, while a sell off of Microsoft stock has begun.