Best paragraph ever: ARS FTW

This paragraph:

The 2006 anti-porn initiative was rendered impotent when 16-year-old Tom Wood penetrated the filter system's blocking mechanism. Despite previous failure, the government is now thrusting deep into the public coffers in order to erect a new $89 million ISP-level version that lawmakers hope will include technical safeguards that are impossible to penetrate.

is in This story. All of you should read it.

Arguing about Free

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/beware_of_freeconomics.php
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/16-03/ff_free?currentPage=all

Lately, it seems that the buzz words to use when you want to start a fight are Free, Feemium or Freeconomics, (not to be confused with Steven Levitt.) Once you start talking about free, everyone seems to have an idea about what the perfect solution is, or what the perfect soultion isn't. The two links above are stories that spotlight this phenomenon and the interest it can create.

Earlier, I wrote about how Anime is the U.S. is in trouble because of free. The internet has been driving down the cost of everything for a decade. you can shop for deals, trade things with strangers, or even find *gasp* free things. In my mind, free means absolutely free. No payment, no adverts. Then you have ad-supported, then Freemium (free service with added premium pay services), then pay services. The point of contention demonstrated by the two articles above is a warning.

The Wired article supposes that eventually, things will be supported by complementary products. Movie tickets, it states would be free but supported and paid for by popcorn and candy. (The first rebuttal: what about those who don't want to buy popcorn and candy?) It's a nice looking future. But it's based on the razor/razor blade system. The fault with that is not everyone shaves, and not everyone buys disposable razors.

The Read Write Web article argues on two points. One is transactions, the other is the imagined enemy of all businesses everywhere -- Monopolies. Its three monopoly points are Google, DVRs, and unfunded startups. Unfunded startups, I won't even get in to because of the complexities. Sarbanes-Oxley is still a sore spot to many VCs, and until that has been shuffled around, fixed, or removed, all startups are going to suffer.

The next point, DVRs, are worthy of an entire discussion on their own. Their history has been shaped by getting around the business model that allows network television to remain free. The Read Write article seems to ignore the real reason we love DVRs, and so, compares them to the cell phone model of "give the phone away and charge for the service." I think this misses the mark. A cable company provided DVR is simply a concession of defeat from the service provider. TiVo (and Replay TV before it was murdered by the Industry), as well as computer based DVR platforms are becoming as popular as DVD players. The last thing that a cable company wants to be is a dumb-pipe, and by forcing you to use their box they are trying to maintain that presence and control. (The only way around a service-provided DVR or cable box is a Cable Card enabled device... sometimes.) It is true though, that remotes, esp. those provided by cable and satellite companies, are absolute rubbish.

Read Write Web also speaks of complex transactions. The post presents the middle man pretty much the way we all see it: The middle man is a necessary evil. Micro transaction managers, ad revenue providers, virtual shop operators. They are all middle men, and they all want their cut. Growing under the wing of a middle man could allow one to eventually break free and set up shop on their own, but without business savvy, or a business manager (another middle man,) setting up shop outside of a middle man seems less and less likely.

Another complex transaction? The transaction itself. Read Write only mentioned the add-on services in this respect, using Wired's twenty-dollar plane ticket as an example. They assume that the model the airline has is complicated or complex for both the passenger and the airline. Different streams of revenue may be harder for the airline to track, but to the passenger, its mostly transparent. Buy a ticket: "Want priority boarding? click this box, pay $5." Want a drink while underway? Swipe your card, get your drink. Again the fear, this time for complex transactions, is for the business, not the consumer.

Vodaphone's CEO only somewhat delusional

[The story]
Vodafone's CEO spoke a lot about interface. He seems to have fallen into the same delusion that the greatest thing, the most successful thing is the iPhone's interface. The rest of his comments, the ones about the OSes in the space, are only there to prop up his argument that every phone doesn't look like the iPhone, and that his company would have made the iPhone first if it weren't for All Of Those Damn OSes! -- As a bonus, he doesn't think that "...we can't sit back and become bit [read: dumb] pipes." Too bad Mr. Sarin, that's exactly what the people want.

If the European markets are anything like the U.S., there is more than just OS choices that are slowing the market. the strategies of the mobile phone companies have as much to do with the slowing of innovation in the space as anything else.

Each mobile operator offers a set group of phones that do exactly what the operator wants to to do. Almost every phone sold in the world is locked down in some way. More and more people are looking to phones that allow them more freedoms. The problem with the market isn't that there are too many OSes to allow that, but too few freedoms on the OSes that are present. Have you ever bought a Windows Mobile phone with the idea that you would put your favorite app on it, only to find out that your mobile carrier had locked your phone from adding/removing/modifying/etc. anything on your phone? Take a look at some of the more popular mobile phone sites. The problems range from the standard (inability to install certain apps), to the outright stupid (preinstalled images and ringtones that can't be removed.)

All of that says one thing to mobile programmers. "Stay Away!" It's simple, really. If you are a mobile programmer you have to look at the pros and cons of making your program. The pros are that you may sell a few programs and get some recognition. The cons are infinite. What OS do you use is only the first question. Will end users be able to install the program? Will they have to hack the phone to do so? Should I write/include the software to allow the hack? What about network/bluetooth support? Who's version of the phone will it be installed on? How many people will think that my application is broke because of a locked-out phone? etc. etc.

In the end, Mr. Sarin is correct in his thinking that the mobile phone market is messed up, and being threatened. The business model has been dealt several blows in the past few years with open source, mobile wi-fi, and the iPhone. The mobile industry is scrambling to find a way to force its customers to follow a masterplan that includes false hope (Rokr, anyone?), false plans (AT&T's actual MMS rates), multi-year lock-is and phones that are still locked by carrier software restrictions, all the while refusing to believe that this 'open thing' will ever be to their benefit. To them I say, it's good that you're afraid of the iPhone. But its not the interface alone that makes it a top tier product. It represents the future. A future where movies, music, text, interface, and (some) openness come together in a package that people want. It represents a future where the mobile carriers are blind, headless, dumb-pipes to voice and IP connections, whose fascist, cold-war style contracts and plans are but wispy memories, and camp fire horror stories.