Disqus - Latest Comments for twinloops

Re: Telecoms competition in the US and Europe

JanDawson — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 10:26:39 -0000

Hi Rudolf,

First of all, apologies that your comment took so long to appear. Unfortunately it was originally stuck somewhere I couldn't see it. Secondly, thanks for leaving it.

Now, to respond:
- first, I'm not an "American analyst" - I do live in the US, but I'm a Brit. So I'm familiar both with the UK and with the rest of Europe. My views reflect my years as a European-based analyst as well as those I've now spent in the US.
- my analysis here is focused on the fact that there are two very different models, both of which have their good points. There are certainly shortcomings with the US system and the European system. I think the US system has done a better job delivering the next generation of fast broadband so far, and the European system is still struggling with that issue. But that doesn't mean the US has universal basic broadband, let alone fast broadband, as you point out.
- I make no attempt to explain why broadband coverage isn't universal in either place - in most European countries there are also substantial rural areas where there is no coverage, for the same reasons - lack of incentive, lack of a broadband USO requirement, and long loop lengths making DSL a bad option.
- the US model was originally designed to move people from regulation-based access to their own networks, but it failed to do that (or providers failed to move through those options before they ran out of money and the regulatory playing field changed). The timing of the 1996 Act, the spread of DSL, and the dotcom crash were phenomenally bad in this respect.

Thanks again for your comments. I always welcome constructive engagement on the topics I post on.

Jan

Re: http://blog.louisgray.com/2009/07/prowl-pushes-growl-notifications-to.html

JanDawson — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 07:06:50 -0000

@Scott - Growl gives you fairly granular control at least for some apps and Prowl has a prioritisation feature, both of which can cut down on clutter

Re: http://blog.louisgray.com/2009/07/prowl-pushes-growl-notifications-to.html

JanDawson — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 08:58:12 -0000

I bought the app and have been using it for Tweetie and Adium notifications on my iPhone. But I've found that the notifications are very patchy - sometimes they work and sometimes they don't. Specifically, they seem to almost never work when my iPhone is connected to my MacBook via cable. But there's definitely a lot of promise there.

Re: studio.rizzn == new.media: /blog: Seven (Ostensibly) Smart Pundits. Seven (Decidely) Retarded Editorials [Google Chrome OS]

JanDawson — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 06:10:28 -0000

Gmail would be a homegrown homerun. Google Reader another.

Also, presumably Dan Lyons is writing as "fake Steve" and not as himself, so probably best not to take those words at face value.

Re: Is The Exclusive Deal Between Apple and AT&T Anticompetitive?

JanDawson — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:01:34 -0000

Several points to make here:
1. The whole current system is broken because of the lack of transparency over real phone prices and the nature of subsidies. None of the carriers wants to make the system more transparent because they fear scaring or confusing customers. But transparency would help a lot, including the carriers, notably in the case of the iPhone 3GS subsidies.
2. The other (large) carriers were also offered the iPhone, but declined, because the conditions imposed by Apple were unpalatable. Apple didn't approach smaller carriers because they didn't have the market share to make it worthwhile - so they are the only ones losing out here.
3. Exclusivity was required because Apple wanted to do something very different from what's been done before, and they needed a carrot to make that happen. Take away the exclusivity and the whole model would change.
4. I'd argue that the whole system of device exclusives exists because it's so hard for the carriers to effectively compete on other items - devices are one of the few real differentiators out there, since network quality, coverage and reliability are so similar, prices are very similar etc.

Re: Why Kara Swisher is More Wrong About Wronger

JanDawson — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 20:43:42 -0000

That wasn't the way I read it - I read it as "comparative form of wrong, as in: more wrong".

See also http://www.merriam-webster.... (a slightly more reputable source, perhaps). Also a variety of other sources online suggesting it's fine (along with its opposite - righter - and the logical conclusion, wrongest, which is also endorsed by Merriam Webster).

Happy to agree to differ about this, Jesse. I appreciate the sentiment, regardless. We could all do better with our online grammar.

PS you're already on the fourth page of results for "wronger definition" on Google... ;-)

Re: Why Kara Swisher is More Wrong About Wronger

JanDawson — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 20:27:43 -0000

I don't get it, Jesse - isn't Kara using it in the sense of "Comparative form of wrong: more wrong" which is included in the definition you cite? I'm all for calling people on bad grammar, but it's not clear she's actually guilty of that infraction here...

Re: How would you like to interact with analysts?

JanDawson — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 07:17:15 -0000

Thanks Paul - much appreciated. That's very helpful insight. I've always liked the idea of a blog as a testing ground for some of what I'm writing - so that I can still have my opinions shaped before publication.

Re: Kaltura video plugin

JanDawson — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:49:15 -0000

I don't think the files end up on my server - I've looked for them but don't see them anywhere. At any rate, this was a one-off test and I haven't tried it again. I think I'd probably use other more robust video platforms like Vimeo in future.

Re: Suggestion: Talk To The Source

JanDawson — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 16:12:21 -0000

But the source was the slide deck - not Fred. Even if you used the rest of the deck as context it didn't help overcome the obvious conclusion you'd draw from that slide. If Fred's going to post the deck without commentary then he can't complain when people take it at face value. The point Fred is making is very valid when bloggers write stories about rumors or things they overheard or surmised from other data - not so much when the post is based on public domain information that seems to be self-contained.

Re: Suggestion: Talk To The Source

JanDawson — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:09:45 -0000

Glad someone made this point - my first reaction was that what happened here was that Fred posted a slide which wasn't self-explanatory without any further explanation to make it so. If people took it at face value they're not to blame for that.

Re: How Apple Can Support True Background Applications on the iPhone

JanDawson — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:15:32 -0000

It's a problem that could do with solving - IM programs, Pandora and others would be nice to have running in the background. But this solution wouldn't really work with more than one app running in the background - you'd start to lose too much screen real estate.

Why not just offer a "run in background" button within apps that might benefit from this functionality (by default hitting the home button closes apps - this would be the alternative). Then, use the home button double click as a way to bring up a list of apps running in the background that you could either switch to or kill (much as the implementation of task manager is bad, the concept isn't for this kind of thing) .

Then, let users decide how many apps they're willing to have running in the background (and hence using up memory / battery). If performance suffers, you know the reason and can make changes. How many apps would you really want running in the background at one time anyway?

Re: louisgray.com: Two Features Every Gmail User Must Utilize

JanDawson — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:31:25 -0000

Then there's archiving of emails via IMAP. If you have this set up via Outlook or Apple Mail, for example, you can make sure you always have an offline copy of all your email. Even if it then goes down, you have a historical archive that Google can't take away from you.

Re: LDS Church Ranks Top Among Churches on Alexa

JanDawson — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 08:15:46 -0000

I suspect it's a function of the way the Church has much higher levels of ordinary member participation in the running of it. With all the people who have to prepare lessons each Sunday, want to read General Conference talks, access their ward calendar and membership directory etc., the need for people to visit lds.org must be much greater than in other Churches where much of the day to day work is taken care of by a small number of leaders who no doubt have mostly offline resources.

Re: “Obama Picks Clinton”: The Danger of Pre-Writing Web Stories

JanDawson — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 16:02:46 -0000

This isn't new with internet reporting. I worked in the photography department at the Reuters news agency in London during the early 1990s while I was a student, and they had files ready and waiting to go for the deaths of aging celebrities, mostly notably the Queen Mother. They were desperate to be first with the news, especially since they mostly acted as a resource for the main newspapers and broadcasters and competed with the likes of AP, AFP and others. I wondered whether anything ever accidentally got sent out on these figures ahead of their actual demise, and sure enough a few months later one news source (not Reuters) accidentally sent out their pre-written "The Queen Mother is dead" story rather prematurely. This was in the days well before the true rise of the Internet. The Internet has perhaps accelerated things a little but hasn't changed much at a fundamental level...

Re: Scoble’s No Internet Anonymity Rule

JanDawson — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 22:06:22 -0000

Many discussions may be made richer by opinions/thoughts/views shared by those who - for whatever reason - prize their anonymity. The question is, would you deprive us of the value such people might bring simply because they are unwilling to shed their anonymity? Does anonymity always devalue the poster's content?