The holiday shopping season is when a technology reporter's fancy turns to video games. So I'm delving into the usual gaggle of games. Check out this segment on Fox Business briefly covering the console wars, with the Nintendo Wii, Microsoft Xbox 360 and Sony PlayStation 3 duking it out (okay, it's really more about the anchors duking it out).
Look for more holiday coverage on CBS News and Fox Business....
The new phone book's here! The new phone book's here!
But seriously, the free upgraded software that will be released to Xbox 360 owners tomorrow is...really good. For a full review from yours truly, catch it at Electronic House.
FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM
Last night when the ungrammatical news came in that Yahoo's co-founder was stepping down as CEO (well, really announcing that he would step down as soon as the board can find some poor soul to take the job), I couldn't help wondering if he felt just a little manipulated by Google. Just a tiny bit.
Okay, completely bamboozled by Google.
Remember, when Microsoft was courting Yahoo it was Google that sailed in braying about the evil empire in Seattle and dangling ad revenue candy in front of Jerry Yang. (Never mind that the rest of us were screaming, "Sell,sell!") Unfortunately, Yahoo took Google's bait, Steve got mad over at Microsoft, and Yahoo's stock began its death spiral. Then,...oh, wait a minute...did I say we were going to share ad revenue? Humm, says Google, I don't think this is going to work. The government wants to regulate. Sorry.
And so, exit stage left, Yahoo co-founder. Thanks a lot, Eric.
Now what? Well, I'm guessing that Yahoo needs a transition team and a CEO who can reach across the aisle to resolve party differences. (And just what was a Google exec doing in Chicago regarding that other transition team? I guess when you control the World Wide Web ad market, people listen.) Of course, I'm referring to the idea of reaching out to the evil empire in Seattle
Steve, it's Yahoo on the phone...again.
FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM
Some facts are so obvious that it's difficult to understand how anyone could be so stubborn as to resist them. For example, there's the case of the world's best portal page (that would be Yahoo, not Google), its on-again-off-again ad algorithm (Yahoo, again), a gloating former Novell exec (you know who) and an about-to-be-former Yahoo exec.
Since some other columns lifted my Mr. Potter analogy (including a suspiciously similar piece of Potter prose in All Things Duh), I might as well stretch it a bit further to note that Mr. Potter, er, Google probably never intended to do the deal with Yahoo. I mean, who could be so daft as to fail to realize that there was no way in H-E-double hockey sticks that the antitrust folks were going to let it sail past? All the hand wringing about government interference on the part of Google seems, well, less than sincere. After all, how can the company go running to Congress whining about how the big, bad cable and wire companies are trying to kill the Internet (true, absolutely true), and then turn around and start choking the life out of said Internet by monopolizing the World Wide Web's main revenue stream (without providing any customer support, I might add). So Mr. Potter, I mean, Eric's ploy seems simple: Dangle the money in front of Yahoo's CEO just long enough to kill the Microsoft deal (or at least delay it), and then when the antitrust issue comes up say, gee, how terrible it is we can't make this deal work. Sorry.
Of course, this may have backfired because what Google actually has done is saved Microsoft billions of dollars. But wait! Enter stage right, the Steverino. Now he's being the petulant child and claiming he has no interest in purchasing Yahoo. (Uh, but just the other day Bill said...oh, never mind.) Right. Maybe they'll buy that line down under in Sydney, but no one in New York is going to believe you for a second. Do a deal around "search"? Who's Steve trying to kid? It's all about tapping the advertising market, duh. If you want search, go to Dogpile.
My suggestion: if they don't want to look as, er, dumb, clueless, venal, or stubborn as the other guys, Microsoft should jump in and buy Yahoo at a deep disount. It's a simple matter of technology and business (and despite some Silicon Valley aspirations, it isn't even rocket science). Then you can get on with building the transition team, hire Powell and Rubin...oops, wrong company..hire some of those former Google execs floating around, and then maybe, just maybe Microhoo will still have time to figure out this whole silly Mad Ave advertising thing before Google owns the whole planet.
(Full disclosure: No, I do not own any Google, Microsoft, or Yahoo stock. Although it's true that Yahoo's stock is so broken down that now even a poor journalist like myself could afford to buy some.)
In case you missed it, I recently tried out a new ergonomic mouse for The New York Times. It's an odd confection of design elements, but it may save your wrist. For more on the Humanscale Switch Mouse, check out the story here.
For more Technology News and Reviews vist J-Q.com
After all, that's the real question, isn't it.
While the neophyte gizgadget hoi polloi whine about all the things the new Android-based smart phone from T-Mobile lacks, I took a few steps back in order to thoughtfully consider whether I liked the new software enough to date it. Now, it's not as sexy as an iPhone or as rich as a Blackberry, but HTC's phone does make me laugh. And what's more important in life, anyway?
To find out who'll have my ear on Saturday night, see J-Q.com.
You may have noticed that your cell phone bill just jumped again. Well, I did. Calls to Wasilla, Alaska? Nope. Too much Web surfing in the back of taxi cabs? Not me.
The culprit, I discovered, was AT$T's text messaging fees. The company jumped them 25 percent. And I'm not the only one who noticed the sudden, inexplicable price increase. Herb Kohl also noticed. And Herb isn't just some long-haired journalist.
Mr. Kohl (D-WI) is the chair of the
Antitrust Subcommittee in the Senate Judiciary Committee. And like
any citizen who suddenly gets gouged, Herb wanted to know why. So he
sent an official letter to the four largest US carriers insisting
that they justify the price increases. Indeed, when Herb looked into it,
he noted that the cost of a text message has actually doubled since 2005.
So did the cost of running the networks suddenly double too? (Future USA Today hed: Fuel Prices Hit Texters.)
More suspicious, Senator Kohl is concerned that the four major carriers all seem to have increased their texting fees by roughly the same amount at roughly the same time. The invisible hand of the market economy, you say? Perhaps, but I'd love to see what the folks at AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile come up with as an answer. Their homework is due back on October 6, and what do you want to bet all four letters will sound surprisingly similar?
So what can you do? Write letters as well, of course. Or perhaps stop texting and phone instead. After all, look at all the trouble a certain text happy mayor got into.
For Technology News and Reviews vist J-Q.com
Google introduced a new Web browser called Chrome today. For a quick analysis of what it could mean for the future of the Web and your online life, catch JQ on the television program Happy Hour on Fox Business today (5 to 6 pm, EST).
For Technology News and Views Visit J-Q.com.
In its ongoing struggles to offer broadband Internet access, cable company Comcast recently had its hand slapped by the FCC for selectively shutting down access to certain Web services. Now, Comcast has decided in lieu of shutting down legitimate file sharing programs, it will simply limit users' Web access. If a Comcast customer creates more than 250 GB of traffic in a month, the company may terminate their service agreement.
While this is a throwback to the days when folks were charged by the kilobyte for access (remember MCI Mail and CompuServe?), it underscores some deeper problems at Comcast (and perhaps augurs similar problems at other cable Internet providers). Investors and Internet users (okay, all of us) should wonder: The profit margins are ostensibly quite healthy in the online access business, so why would a company go to such extremes—flaunt FCC rules, infuriate customers, hack clients' computers—to restrict Internet access?
Two reasons:
-
It has serious infrastructure problems, very serious infrastructure problems. Clearly Comcast cannot adequately handle the data load of its current subscribers, which means possible failures or tremendous capital expense in the future to keep up. So investors should be leery.
-
Its premium services, such as video on demand, are struggling. So Comcast wants to restrict movie studios and companies like Tivo from competing with Comcast's own video-on-demand business. The best way to do this is by limiting Internet access and thus preventing people from using those competing services in the future.
The first issue should certainly cause investors to worry. It indicates that the company has not anticipated the demand for Internet services and since it cannot keep up with that demand, the future looks bleak indeed for Comcast. It will either have to extensively upgrade the nodes on its network (the hubs in each neighborhood) or-–worse—add more lines. The latter is so expensive a proposition as to be prohibitive.
The second problem is ineluctable. As more video services become available, it's only a matter of months before more and more customers bump up against the 250 GB limit. Comcast tries to make 250 GB sound like a lot of data; the equivalent of 125 standard definition movies (at 2 GB a movie), the company says. However, people are watching movies in high definition now (what year is it, anyway). Those movies are more in the range of 25 to 33 GB each. Order 10 movies online from the growing number of legit movie sites, and you'll exceed Comcast's limit and your connection could be terminated, according to Comcast.
This way leads Comcast directly into antitrust lawsuits and extensive court battles. That means corporate distraction and declining profits.
Furthermore, while some may claim that 250 GB of data traffic a month is plenty for anyone, they would be wrong.
Increasingly popular Internet services promise to only raise the demand for data. Consider online backup and storage (just backing up a typical PC online would exceed Comcasts limits), and look at applications like Microsoft's Photosynth, and video calling services. These are data intensive, mainstream services. Photo and video sharing on sites like Youtube are commonplace. And online software purchases (want the next version of Photoshop?) can easily account for gigabytes of downloads. And never mind adding a few family members on the home Wi-Fi network who are addicted to World of Warcraft and iTunes. It won't take the average suburban family long to crash the 250 GB limit.
Now will Comcast actually call those families when they exceed the limits? That remains to be seen. However, it does indicate how deep the company's problems run.
On the upside, investors might look more closely at the likes of Sprint. Comcast's problems could be a boon to Sprint and its forthcoming WiMax wireless broadband service. All Sprint has to do is drop WiMax cell towers wherever Comcast has service, and voila, thousands of new subscribers.
When you become the most popular kid in the class, you also become the one with a big bull's eye on your back. Such may be the case with Apple. An overheated hype machine for its cell phone, a lock on the online music business, and sundry devices desired by millions.
A backdating stock options scandal and rumors about the health its CEO don't help matters much either. For a quick look at how that's all going down, one need look no further than the Happy Hour show on the Fox Business channel with yours truly:
For more tech news and reviews visit J-Q.com
