Disqus - Latest Comments for hbobrien

Re: Costco to drop all Apple products

Inactive — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 13:55:09 -0000

"I look at Apple's numbers over the past decade: the fortuitous rise in stock price, the transformational effects of their new products, the impact of new classes of devices, and I see potential."

I do, too. I see the potential of how much better they would have done had they actually used all the resources available to them.

"They certainly shouldn't change their pace of innovation due to the skin colour and genitals of their executives."

Agreed. Which is why the fact they already have is so egregious.

In the same way that affirmative action for women and minorities is counter-productive (because it's almost always used to limit promotions and hiring -- "tokenism with a human face," to riff on an old phrase), then affirmative action for white males, as you seem to be arguing for here, is also counter-productive.

If you genuinely "judge persons based on their actions," how statistically likely do you think this particular distribution of people happened on the basis of their merit alone? To what degree is it much more likely that it's Steve Jobs who "see(s) penes"... approvingly, as the basis for advancement in the company?

Why do you hate Apple's shareholders and American capitalism so, that you find these limitations appropriate? Why is it you want to make Apple a test bed for social engineering experimentation?

Re: Costco to drop all Apple products

Inactive — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 20:20:57 -0000

As is your privilege. {shrug} Still, Apple takes Federal money as a contractor, and as such is bound by Executive Order 11246, which says all Federal contractors have to abide by equal opportunity statues. One may say that's good or bad, but Apple is still clearly in violation of that regulation.

So, whether or not something is "wrong" has little to do with whether it's illegal. Again, {shrug}.

Re: Costco to drop all Apple products

Inactive — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 16:58:14 -0000

You're also missing out on the Golden Rule aspects of this -- and all civil rights questions are ultimately applications of the Golden Rule (or "the principle of reciprocity," if you care to take a more global perspective).

That is, as a white, I do not want to be discriminated against. That means I have no wish to discriminate against those of other races. When I see discrimination at play -- as appears to be happening at Apple -- that hurts my efforts to avoid discrimination, because it provides fodder for those who would use my race against me.

The same basic logic applies to the issue of gender. (Or orientation, or faith, or ethnicity, or what have you.)

Re: Costco to drop all Apple products

Inactive — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 16:33:29 -0000

I am neither racist nor misandrist (I suspected you meant misanthropic, but on some research, I find I'm wrong -- although perhaps I can be forgiven as the word appears only to have been coined in 1952 [per the OED], and appears to be used only in a small subculture).

I am merely pointing out, as Bill Joy once did, "Not all smart people work for you." Apple guarantees this is true for them, by excluding 61% of the available American talent pool from their execs.

This is, at bottom, a shareholders' rights issue. How can Apple possibly be maximizing shareholder value by tying 61% of their hands behind their backs? Especially since the same cannot be said about any comparable competitor (or if there is, name 'em)?

If it comes to that, how can someone possibly be maximizing shareholder value by putting Federal contracts at risk through prima facie violation of Executive Order 11246?

Re: Costco to drop all Apple products

Inactive — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 00:51:40 -0000

Somebody at Costco must've asked Apple about why their executive team is all-male and all-white.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words:

http://www.apple.com/pr/bios/

1950's Southern country club, or 2010 executive team? You decide.

Re: The Ultimate Effect Of Google E-Books: A New Ad-Supported Model For Books

Inactive — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 18:24:46 -0000

"The easiest one to point out is that 3x as many people watch content on Hulu than do on Netflix in a typical month..."

Huh. So, given that (as previously mentioned) Netflix makes $2.2B a year while Hulu makes $240M a year (per each of their most recent quarterly reports), you're implying Netflix makes about 27 times as much per viewer than Hulu does.

And you're advising publishers that this is a good model to follow? "Follow me, boys, I can cut your revenues per reader by 96%!"

"I do disagree on your one hopeful note that "advertisers are wising up" because, unfortunately, they don't seem to be. At least not most of them."

That seems a very high threshold. You appear to be implying you won't concede advertising is in trouble until both revenue and percentage of GDP falls by 50%. By this standard, the Great Depression just wasn't that bad, since unemployment hit 33%, but hey, "most" people still had a job.

"(C)able cutters don't currently number more than a few tens of thousands."

Well, I must personally know a fair proportion of them, then. I suppose that's possible. I don't usually think of myself as being in that kind of a bubble, but... {shrug}

Then again, I was among the first 1000 or so users who did computer-based chat ever... on Bitnet's RELAY in 1986 (numbers per Jeff Kell, the writer of the program). It felt like a big, globally-distributed crowd back then, so subjectivity may go a long way.

Re: The Ultimate Effect Of Google E-Books: A New Ad-Supported Model For Books

Inactive — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 23:09:06 -0000

" (T)hank you, Hal, for calling me young."

You're welcome.

"I will remind my college son that even though he thinks I'm ancient, there are smart people out there I have fooled, at least on this point."

Hey, everything's relative. Given the data I was presented with (someone willing to say, "The only reason book advertising has not happened...", when book advertising has already happened, and then failed in the market), I thought the more likely, give 'em the benefit of the doubt scenario was that you weren't old enough to be reading/buying books during the relevant years. If that's not accurate, well... Everything is provisional, pending better data. {shrug}

"I couldn't conclusively prove that he was wrong because what was lacking was the measurement necessary to identify the waste. Now that we have more measured media, we are seeing advertising fall because advertisers are more willing and able to cut out the fat."

On this, I'm afraid I have to disagree.

Here's the problem, as I see it -- there are basically four scenarios. You could draw them as a straight Cartesian grid, but that can't really be done in text. So, to summarize:

1) +a/+s -- increased spending on advertising leads to increased sales
2) +a/-s -- spending on advertising increases, but sales fall anyway
3) -a/+s -- spending on advertising is cut (or is low), but sales rise
4) -a/-s -- spending on advertising is cut (or is low), and sales fall

The Conventional Wisdom -- and the implicit transaction sellers of advertising offer -- is that 1) and 4) are how the world works. The problem is, 2) and 3) happen often enough to call that into doubt. Political candidates who spend lots but lose (Meg Whitman and the lost $170 million comes immediately to mind). The Blair Witch Project coming out of nowhere and grossing $140 million. Starbucks becoming a global brand from Schultz buying the company in 1987 to 2007 before running their first TV ads. The 12.8 million hits on Google (no exaggeration) for the search term "disappointing sales despite ad campaign."

I would say advertising is a classic example of partial reinforcement, right up there with lottery tickets. Because the results are so wildly variable, individual examples to fit one's premise can always be found. But that's precisely it. If scenario 1) above held true, and if the relationship between sales and ads wasn't completely random, such examples couldn't be found.

And the advertisers are wising up.

That's why the "more measured media" you promote are driving ad buys down. The more data, the more precise the measurement, the more it's obvious ads don't deliver what they promise.

As to digital media being less expensive to produce -- yes, of course. But digital media also have made it much easier to avoid the ad culture. I don't think piracy is solely driven by the appeal of "free." I think it's also driven by "no commercials."

To put it another way, I think ad-free Netflix makes $2.2B a year while ad-supported Hulu makes $240M a year for a reason.

People will change their behavior to avoid ads almost as strongly as they will to avoid taxes. One might almost think the person on the street sees them as equivalent.

Again, this is nothing new to anyone who's been reading that well known anti-advertising rag AdAge during the last five years or so.

When you take the stance, "Declining ad sales are a good thing for the marketing business because it just means we're getting more efficient!" it rings as falsely as cable companies saying, "'Cable cutters'? I don't think they exist."

Re: The Ultimate Effect Of Google E-Books: A New Ad-Supported Model For Books

Inactive — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 21:34:35 -0000

"There are plenty of forms of interaction (like massage, say) that aren't ad supported, because they're not mass. And individual books... not mass, I think."

Seth, that reminds me of a point the writer/illustrator William Rotsler used to make: Censorship is generally directly proportional to the number of people who can observe a given work simultaneously. Thus leaflets, books, small-run newspapers generally fly under the radar, even in relatively restrictive societies.

Two interesting corollaries there:

* It's amusing to see censorship and advertising behave in parallel circumstances.

* The fragmentation of simultaneous audiences -- whether through cable channel choice, time-shifting DVRs, the internet, or what have you -- is having interesting effects. (That fragmentation may also be why political ads [and thus campaign costs] keep rising -- you just can't get enough of the electorate all in one place any more, so you have to seek out/buy multiple channels of contact where one or two used to do.)

Re: The Ultimate Effect Of Google E-Books: A New Ad-Supported Model For Books

Inactive — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 18:14:02 -0000

"Qualitatively I feel that ad as percentage of GDP should decrease over time, mainly because the measurement of online ads shows that ads are not nearly as effective as was assumed when results couldn't be measured as well in other mediums."

Ummm... Isn't that what I just said? "The measurement of online ads shows that ads are not nearly as effective as was assumed..." Check. Here was my version: "Who more than Google has the data that shows ads don't lead to sales any greater than the margin of error?"

The increasing accuracy of measurement of ad effectiveness through the use of online media is what's making the empirical case ads have hardly any effectiveness at all, and are thus a waste of shareholders' money. This leads to declining ad buys, measured both as a proportion of the economy and in absolute dollars, as ad buyers increasingly realize advertising doesn't have any rational justification.

There will be some holdouts who continue unsuccessful business practices with the attitude of, "we've always done it that way...," but that won't last forever. Or even 30 years, at current rates of decline.

Re: The Ultimate Effect Of Google E-Books: A New Ad-Supported Model For Books

Inactive — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 17:32:13 -0000

" The only reason book advertising has not happened is that the economics of distributing books have required that people pay for them..."

Um... No. You're showing your age. (Young-ish.) Paperbacks in the 1960's and 1970's frequently had a color ad page pasted in. Trouble was, those paperbacks competed in the marketplace against ones that didn't have ads, and sold fewer copies.

"(A)dvertising is essential to the success of nearly all media—analog and digital."

Which is why nearly all media -- analog and digital -- have been having such a hard time lately being successful in the aggregate.

Advertising is dying.

Ad buys peaked as a percentage of GDP in 2002 (at 2.52%). Today they stand at 1.8% -- a 28% drop in 8 years. Absolute dollars for ad sales peaked in 2008, and haven't recovered. If you want to know why newspapers, radio, billboards, commercial broadcast TV, basic cable, and magazines are all having trouble, that's why.

Yes, Google and others have picked up some of the slack through selling online advertising. Trouble is, it's not unlike music. Just like digital sales on iTunes haven't made up for the aggregate loss in the sales of CDs for the record labels, Google's pickup hasn't made up for the loss of sales in offline media.

Actually, far from opening the door to an ad-based model when it comes to books, this strikes me as yet another attempt by Google to find something, anything other than search-based ads to make money (ChromeOS and Android, anyone?). They have a limited window of opportunity before their market collapses completely, and they know it. Who more than Google has the data that shows ads don't lead to sales any greater than the margin of error? And if ads don't generate sales, how do you justify the money spent on them to shareholders?

If you haven't read Bob Garfield's "Chaos Scenario" pieces in Advertising Age, or Eric Clemons' "Why Advertising Is Failing On The Internet" on TechCrunch, you really should.

But, really... Advising book publishers to pursue ad-based models at this late date is not unlike telling someone in the 1910's to go into the street cleaning business because horse manure will always fill the streets.

Re: Is the tech press needed anymore? (how Apple iPhone apps take off now)

Inactive — Fri, 26 Nov 2010 01:05:42 -0000

"Mr O'Brien is happier throwing out smart alec comments like..."

If a smart alec says 2+2=4, are they wrong? If a completely sober-faced individual says 2+2=5, are they right?

When people bury their heads in the sand and ignore empirical reality because there's a particular piece of group-think they want to subscribe to, the smart alec-ness of a commenter isn't really the problem.

For example, when I point out that Apple's margins are in part supported by the low labor costs of their outsourcers, that a documented fact. That 10 workers at Foxconn's plant have committed suicide this year is a documented fact.

It may be unpleasant for you to face that. But like the line in Pulp Fiction goes, "If my answers frighten you, then you should cease asking scary questions." No amount of sober delivery will bring those 10 Foxconn workers back to life.

Re: Is the tech press needed anymore? (how Apple iPhone apps take off now)

Inactive — Fri, 26 Nov 2010 00:55:17 -0000

(double post removed)

Re: Is the tech press needed anymore? (how Apple iPhone apps take off now)

Inactive — Fri, 26 Nov 2010 00:55:01 -0000

"That's a ridiculous comment. Where do you think everyone else builds there products or components? China."

Ah. So if Liu Bao were to jump off the Empire State Building, would you jump off the Empire State Building?

"Everybody does it," is not a moral defense.

"Apple only targets the most profitable portions of the market, where the margins are. Smartphones for example all have higher margins vs. feature or dumb phones. Apple doesn't go bottom feeding for marketshare."

This is a very strange argument. You seem to be saying that Apple creates mainstream devices, even as it picks and chooses which high-profit niche markets it enters. Well, which one? It's a logical impossibility to be both. You may as well argue Ferrari makes mainstream mass-market cars.

Your next paragraph has many factual errors, too many to address quickly. You say, for example, "100 million iPhones and 40 million iPads next year," as if that's both credible, and impressive. It's neither. Gartner's mobile phone figures for 3Q10, released on 2010/11/10 ("current" enough for you?) show the iPhone sold 13.5 million units. That annualizes out to 54 million. The only way a projection (unsourced, I notice) to 100 million works out arithmetically is to assume sales will double in rate. How?

But let's give you that extremely unlikely 100 million. Sounds impressive... until you find out 417 million handsets sold in 3Q10 alone, which annualizes out to 1.6 billion. Or, to make the numbers more comparable -- Apple, 100 million; total market 1668 million.

Now, bring up Dashboard -- click on the calculator -- divide 100 by 1668 -- and notice that means a market share of 5.9%

And that's if sales double in rate.

"...if you include the iPad as a computer, which it is if you're going to count netbooks..."

In that case, smartphones are computers, too -- which they are if you're going to count scaled up smartphones (without the phone) like iPads. At which point the market share is a lot smaller than 24%.

The whole "What if the iPad were a PC?" idea comes from a post of the same title at Fortune, quoting Deutsche Bank's Chris Whitmore. Unfortunately, Mr Whitmore has never released his figures to the public, so there's no way to check how accurate they are.

*^*^*

David Pogue, in his article "The Lessons of 10 Years of Talking Tech," in the New York Times (2010/11/24) says, "Some people’s gadgets determine their self-esteem."

That you appear, whether knowingly or not, to repeat unsourced assertion with no critical thinking or fact checking is strong evidence this is true for you. I'm not saying it's good or bad -- there are plenty of more destructive ways of asserting self-esteem.

But you shouldn't think it's not patently obvious, and that you won't get caught when you tell whoppers. (40 million iPads in a year? When it's selling 4 million a quarter? Really?)

Re: Is the tech press needed anymore? (how Apple iPhone apps take off now)

Inactive — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 20:19:04 -0000

"Apple pulls in 43% of all handset (smart, feature and dumb phones) profits worldwide..."

Which it does by outsourcing manufacturing to a company whose working conditions are so bad, workers have been known to commit suicide rather than continue.

Labor costs in China are only going to go up. Shipping costs on Apple's long logistical tail are only going to go up. This strongly implies Apple's margins are temporary -- pretty much a smash-and-grab aberration.

"...and dominates the tech press and popular culture with it's services and products."

Apple certainly dominates the tech press. There doesn't seem to be any rational reason for this, given 97% of cell phone buyers and 95% of computer buyers don't use its products. That's what prompted my comment in the first place.

The problem is, the tiny sliver of people who like Apple's products really, really, really like them, and no amount of telling them 19 out of 20 people don't give a damn dissuades them from thinking Apple is Tremendously Important to All of Humanity.

Meanwhile, Apple's internal culture is so exclusive they limit eligibility to join their executive team to only 39% of the US population -- white males. I look forward to the next edition of Things White People Like adding Apple products to the list.

Re: Is the tech press needed anymore? (how Apple iPhone apps take off now)

Inactive — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 20:08:46 -0000

"There's no death of advertising."

Then I suppose Bob Garfield hasn't been writing about the death of advertising for five years under the rubric "the chaos scenario" in Advertising Age. I suppose Eric Clemons never wrote "Why Advertising Is Failing On The Internet," on TechCrunch. I suppose aggregate advertising budgets didn't peak in 2008, and have actually recovered.

However, on my Earth (head out from sun, go 93 million miles, hang a left, can't miss it), all those things have happened.

And that's even before we get to the lack of empirical evidence advertising leads to increased sales, which is why it's increasingly difficult to justify ad buys anymore to shareholders. If they did, the top companies listed by Fortune (or the FT, for the European perspective), should more or less match the top advertisers. Instead, the relationship between top companies and top advertisers is random.

"Check the products in your bathroom. How many of them are from major brands?"

Ah, the Warren Buffett approach.

Very few, actually. The soap and shampoos come from a farmer's market in town. The toilet paper is generic Costco. The prescription meds are generic; the non-scrip meds are generic from a local grocery store.

About the one place where there are brands are in the mechanicals: Electric razor, electric toothbrush, nosehair trimmer. That's probably because it's really tough to do that kind of capital-intensive fabrication on a small scale.

On the other hand, did advertising influence those purchases? It seems unlikely. We've "cut the cord," so TV ads are out. They're not the kinds of things I've noticed text ads from Google on. The print publications we get don't advertise those kinds of things. I don't listen to commercial radio.

So, not a bad gambit... And I fully realize I may not be typical, which is what your bet was. However, the question is, Is the way I avoid advertisements a path that more and more are pursuing, or is it shrinking? Everything from the very phrase "cutting the cord" to DVR usage patterns suggests the former.

Re: Is the tech press needed anymore? (how Apple iPhone apps take off now)

Inactive — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:53:56 -0000

When a typical person from somewhere in the world goes to buy a cell phone, 97% buy something other than an iPhone.

No, that's neither a typo, nor hyperbole.

That's a lack of "impact in the real world." The key words there were "real world," not "impact." In the real world, the overwhelming majority of people simply don't care much about the iPhone.

Re: Apple Acquired Nuance? Five Reasons Why It’s Probably Not True

Inactive — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 23:27:30 -0000

Most likely reason Apple would never acquire Nuance:

Nuance's Leadership Team includes women. That's not permitted at Apple.

http://www.nuance.com/compa...

http://www.apple.com/pr/bios/

Re: Facebook Alternative Diaspora Launches Their Private Alpha With Some Bet Hedging

Inactive — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 16:11:03 -0000

"Nobody cares about Germany."

Thanks for providing evidence about whether markets are rational or not.

Re: Is the tech press needed anymore? (how Apple iPhone apps take off now)

Inactive — Sun, 21 Nov 2010 16:00:45 -0000

"But Apple spends more money on ads than probably any other single smartphone manufacturer that carries Android."

On the one hand, Tinus' reply is yet more evidence about the Death of Advertising.

On the other, your observation may well explain why a device with 3% global market share keeps getting coverage in the ad-based press that's all out of proportion to its impact in the real world.

Re: The End of Sexism

Inactive — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 21:28:37 -0000

At Apple, there are 7 members of the board of directors, and 11 featured executives. Out of those 18 people, 17 are white men. 1 person out of the 18 is a two-fer non-white woman.

So, really, what can you expect?

http://www.halobrien.com/20...

Re: LinkedIn Is Now At 85 Million Members, Adding A Member A Second

Inactive — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:49:19 -0000

"SMB uses agencies at a higher rate than larger firms on average..."

"Citation needed," as they say on Wikipedia. Who's your source?

"To try to find relevant connections to get intros on these type of jobs is absolutely tough and time consuming."

So... Now you're arguing that since LI doesn't give you a pony, and no other HR tool gives you a pony, therefore HR is hard, and let's go shopping.

I know it's disrespectful to point and laugh, but you're making it extremely difficult.

Re: With A Nice Website Update, Foursquare Did Just Get More Fun With Friends

Inactive — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 23:14:14 -0000

You were accused of writing a "pointless" blog, Edwin. I defended you as best I could. For my troubles, you call me names.

{sigh}

I suppose no good deed goes unpunished.

Re: LinkedIn Is Now At 85 Million Members, Adding A Member A Second

Inactive — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 23:01:53 -0000

"And if you are a fortune 1000 firm with hundreds of open positions, how well does this work on the front end of recruiting?"

Gosh... You mean things might not scale for large companies? That they may actually be at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to recruiting? You shock me.

"Even though it works well for folks like us, I am not so sure it is ideal for the average user."

According to the Census Bureau, there are about 20 million businesses in this country. (And those are the ones with employees --- throw in single-owner-worker small businesses, and it becomes 25M or so.) If your focus is with Fortune 1000 companies... You don't have the slightest idea what "average users" think or feel. You're so deep in the bubble, it seems you don't realize there is a bubble.

Re: Beatles iTunes - Kevin Fallon - Politics - The Atlantic

Inactive — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 22:42:45 -0000

LOL did you never read A Century of Recorded Music: Listening to Musical History by Timothy Day (see pgs. 7-8)? Or see pictures of early albums like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Earlyalbum1.jpg

LOL

Re: Beatles iTunes - Kevin Fallon - Politics - The Atlantic

Inactive — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 22:32:52 -0000

More importantly, this differs from 1960's radio how? All that was ever played on the radio were the singles being decried so strongly. Still, the albums managed to sell anyway. Funny that.