Just trying to do a little catching up on my RSS reading (couple weeks behind, sadly). Caught this Stretechery article on the iPad, and think there's at least one facet he isn't catching.
Specifically, he calls out Apple for not doing enough to get developers to work on the iPad. I'm not saying he's wrong there (I really don't know, and certainly see it as possible), but he's certainly overlooking one factor, which is that Apple is pushing developers away from device-specific solutions with auto-layout and moving away from pixel-perfect design.
Is that going to help the iPad? I don't know (but wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't), but it does mean that there are fewer iPad-specific apps, going forward. It has basically become indistinguishable, going forward.
Showing posts with label stratechery. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stratechery. Show all posts
20141024
20140503
More on net neutrality
The latest stratechery (now pronounced "strah-tek-ery", apparently) podcast had a lot of good information in it. There was discussion of what "common carrier" status means, which I should have probably explained better in my last mention of the issue. And there was an excellent discussion of what "rent seeking" means, in economic terms.
(And a brief sidenote about the Andreeson quote. Utilities probably did have 10x as much poop to handle every three years for the first decade or more of laying pipes to deal with that. I wish my grandfather was still around to ask about that; he spent most of his career putting in sewer lines.)
There's also some interesting things I never considered, like how Netflix' behavior might be rent-seeking, and how metered usage would solve a number of problems.
The problem with metered usage is a simple matter of cognitive load. Until the prices get much lower (in line with the cost of providing the data), it adds much great transaction costs. Very few people would have signed up for broadband at all, if it had been metered; they had no idea how much they used. And even now, it'd be a big shift. But maybe that's where things need to go; I've been solidly against that, but they've got me thinking a bit more about it, and maybe it's inevitable.
But there were a couple places where I thought the discussion fell down. One was that they failed to mention how, back in the 90's, the telecomms were given hundreds of billions (yes, that's with a B) of dollars in tax breaks to provide Fiber to the Home (FTTH). How much of that exists? Yes, basically zero.
Another was that there was no mention of how the governments provide rights of way to put in cables. That's also a hundreds of billions of dollars subsidy. Not that I mind it being provided; I do agree with them that, at this point, internet access is a basic right. But it does bear on the discussion.
A final one (and this is the important one) is the idea of content delivery networks. The basic idea is that the CDN provider (Akamai, for instance) puts their servers in the ISP's data center, and Netflix, for instance, provides data to the CDN, and the CDN delivers to the customers.
What that means is that, despite the fact that Netflix is the bulk of all internet traffic, most (read: probably 99% or more) of their traffic is only going from CDN to end user. And that means, as far as the ISP is concerned, the data is staying within the ISP. And bandwidth within the ISP is, effectively, infinite. The cost to the ISP is the cost of electricity. In aggregate, that's a lot, but it's mostly the cost of having the system operating; data traveling adds very little.
So I fundamentally disagree about Netflix being rent-seeking. And about the reasonability of the ISP charging extra for Netflix. Netflix pays the CDN, and the CDN pays the ISP, so they're actually looking to triple-charge, not double-charge.
The other major issue is that they missed, as I mentioned, Wheeler mentioning "common carrier" status, and mentioning reclassifying ISPs. Not a huge deal, as I don't believe Wheeler when he talks about it, but it's worth mentioning that Wheeler did add it to the discussion.
Still, well worth a listen, despite it being quite long.
(And a brief sidenote about the Andreeson quote. Utilities probably did have 10x as much poop to handle every three years for the first decade or more of laying pipes to deal with that. I wish my grandfather was still around to ask about that; he spent most of his career putting in sewer lines.)
There's also some interesting things I never considered, like how Netflix' behavior might be rent-seeking, and how metered usage would solve a number of problems.
The problem with metered usage is a simple matter of cognitive load. Until the prices get much lower (in line with the cost of providing the data), it adds much great transaction costs. Very few people would have signed up for broadband at all, if it had been metered; they had no idea how much they used. And even now, it'd be a big shift. But maybe that's where things need to go; I've been solidly against that, but they've got me thinking a bit more about it, and maybe it's inevitable.
But there were a couple places where I thought the discussion fell down. One was that they failed to mention how, back in the 90's, the telecomms were given hundreds of billions (yes, that's with a B) of dollars in tax breaks to provide Fiber to the Home (FTTH). How much of that exists? Yes, basically zero.
Another was that there was no mention of how the governments provide rights of way to put in cables. That's also a hundreds of billions of dollars subsidy. Not that I mind it being provided; I do agree with them that, at this point, internet access is a basic right. But it does bear on the discussion.
A final one (and this is the important one) is the idea of content delivery networks. The basic idea is that the CDN provider (Akamai, for instance) puts their servers in the ISP's data center, and Netflix, for instance, provides data to the CDN, and the CDN delivers to the customers.
What that means is that, despite the fact that Netflix is the bulk of all internet traffic, most (read: probably 99% or more) of their traffic is only going from CDN to end user. And that means, as far as the ISP is concerned, the data is staying within the ISP. And bandwidth within the ISP is, effectively, infinite. The cost to the ISP is the cost of electricity. In aggregate, that's a lot, but it's mostly the cost of having the system operating; data traveling adds very little.
So I fundamentally disagree about Netflix being rent-seeking. And about the reasonability of the ISP charging extra for Netflix. Netflix pays the CDN, and the CDN pays the ISP, so they're actually looking to triple-charge, not double-charge.
The other major issue is that they missed, as I mentioned, Wheeler mentioning "common carrier" status, and mentioning reclassifying ISPs. Not a huge deal, as I don't believe Wheeler when he talks about it, but it's worth mentioning that Wheeler did add it to the discussion.
Still, well worth a listen, despite it being quite long.
20140430
The Nike experience?
I'm listening to the second (I'm an episode behind, I guess) Stratechery podcast, which is working its way towards discussing Nike's impending dumping of the Fuelband as a hardware product.
But along the way, they're talking about the experience of using Nike products and the Nike brand.
This is pretty interesting to me, on a couple of levels. The first is that I have no idea what they're talking about with the Nike Experience. I've been playing sports all my life; I just stopped playing competitive ultimate last year. But I have very little in the way of Nike products. One pair of shorts that was the cheapest pair I could find in that store (I was on my way to an ultimate game when I realized I had no shorts, somehow); I like them, but it's a pair of shorts.
The other that I can think of is one of my pairs of cleats. Similar situation, insofar as I was buying them on my way to a game, although it was not a situation where I said, "oh shit, I've got nothing"; I did plan on buying them that day.
I went to a store that was mostly carrying soccer stuff, and needed to find cleats that didn't have a spike on the ball of the foot (was nursing a stress fracture there at the time). There weren't many options, but those Nike's fit the bill well.
So I haven't really seen "The Nike Experience", despite being an athlete all my life.
The other part of it is that I've never been one to care about branding. Well, not with general products, thinking about it. I suppose you could make an argument for books and music, because I certainly had favorite groups and authors. But when it came to products, the closest I got was preferring Coke products at one time (I hate Coke and Pepsi equally, these days).
Well, until I got to using Apple products about fifteen years ago. And they've been stable and useful enough that I love them for all non-server uses (linux has far, far better context switching performance, so anything server-related, I'll pick linux. Probably ubuntu). I guess I could go to full-time linux use, but I'm definitely more productive on a mac.
When the iPod came out, I was thrilled to get one (it was a gift), and found it was unbelievably better than any of the other competitors that were out, then.
I actually waited a long time to get an iPhone; I wasn't interested in being an AT&T customer (we knew they were part of NSA surveillance; the others we could at least hope were better). But I didn't rush out and get one when Verizon got them immediately. I debated and debated, and finally broke down when I heard Verizon was about to end unlimited data plans. So I got it the last day they offered those plans.
When the iPad came out, I passed on the first generation. I have a vague recollection of saying I wanted three or four specific features before getting one. The second generation was close enough that I bought one the day they were announced (and waited a couple weeks for it to arrive).
Anyway, the point is that I'm very deeply into the Apple ecosystem, these days, but it's really the first time I've had significant feelings about a brand.
In any event, the discussion in there was very interesting.
But along the way, they're talking about the experience of using Nike products and the Nike brand.
This is pretty interesting to me, on a couple of levels. The first is that I have no idea what they're talking about with the Nike Experience. I've been playing sports all my life; I just stopped playing competitive ultimate last year. But I have very little in the way of Nike products. One pair of shorts that was the cheapest pair I could find in that store (I was on my way to an ultimate game when I realized I had no shorts, somehow); I like them, but it's a pair of shorts.
The other that I can think of is one of my pairs of cleats. Similar situation, insofar as I was buying them on my way to a game, although it was not a situation where I said, "oh shit, I've got nothing"; I did plan on buying them that day.
I went to a store that was mostly carrying soccer stuff, and needed to find cleats that didn't have a spike on the ball of the foot (was nursing a stress fracture there at the time). There weren't many options, but those Nike's fit the bill well.
So I haven't really seen "The Nike Experience", despite being an athlete all my life.
The other part of it is that I've never been one to care about branding. Well, not with general products, thinking about it. I suppose you could make an argument for books and music, because I certainly had favorite groups and authors. But when it came to products, the closest I got was preferring Coke products at one time (I hate Coke and Pepsi equally, these days).
Well, until I got to using Apple products about fifteen years ago. And they've been stable and useful enough that I love them for all non-server uses (linux has far, far better context switching performance, so anything server-related, I'll pick linux. Probably ubuntu). I guess I could go to full-time linux use, but I'm definitely more productive on a mac.
When the iPod came out, I was thrilled to get one (it was a gift), and found it was unbelievably better than any of the other competitors that were out, then.
I actually waited a long time to get an iPhone; I wasn't interested in being an AT&T customer (we knew they were part of NSA surveillance; the others we could at least hope were better). But I didn't rush out and get one when Verizon got them immediately. I debated and debated, and finally broke down when I heard Verizon was about to end unlimited data plans. So I got it the last day they offered those plans.
When the iPad came out, I passed on the first generation. I have a vague recollection of saying I wanted three or four specific features before getting one. The second generation was close enough that I bought one the day they were announced (and waited a couple weeks for it to arrive).
Anyway, the point is that I'm very deeply into the Apple ecosystem, these days, but it's really the first time I've had significant feelings about a brand.
In any event, the discussion in there was very interesting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)