The other detail I wanted to talk about, with respect to the ATP show, is the money going to the App Store.
I can see where John is coming from, as far as volume discounts are concerned. And maybe that's a reasonable way to go.
I disagree a bit, though, insofar as I'm not at all sure Apple is making a mistake is drawing a line at "30% or bust". I guess I'm mostly in agreement with Marco on that, and that it didn't matter to Amazon.
But the reason I wanted to comment is to note that this does present an interesting opportunity for Amazon. Since Amazon never allowed in-app purchases of books on iPads (a reasonable position, coming from them, I think), they never had any idea of whether that was working out well for them.
But for comiXology, they've got historical data on purchasing, so they'll know whether it's worth keeping out in-app purchases there. I'm wondering whether it'll be enough money that they'll re-enable it in the near future.
My bet is that it'll prevent new people coming into comiXology, and cut down the people still using it by a large percentage (basically to only those people doing, in effect, monthly subscriptions).
I guess we'll see. I wish we'd be able to see the dollars change, but Amazon would never do that, whether it was good or bad.
20140505
Who is a gamer?
I was amused, listening to the latest ATP, as they talked about gaming.
Especially the talk about gamers, and having console machines. They mentioned gamers having consoles. And I've got several sitting around.
I've got a Turbo Duo (I had a Turbo Grafx as well, but got rid of that a long time ago), a Dreamcast (pissed that I recently went looking for Crazy Taxi for that, and couldn't find it), a Playstation or two (not sure if any of them still work, though), a Playstation II (still gets used occasionally for DDR-related exercise), and a Wii (which I enjoyed for a while, but haven't turned on in several years).
Mostly, I was amused because I do have several around (actually, I'd forgotten a couple of them), but none of mine are even recent, let alone current, and they rarely get turned on.
I did recently turn on the Duo to play around with Bomberman (wanted to see if I could get the Saxophone powerup again). But other than occasional DDR (and even more occasional Karaoke Revolution games), I don't use any of them anymore.
And none of them really for gaming, per se.
I'm not sure what that says about me, really, but I thought it was interesting. And I wonder whether that sort of thing is typical.
These days, almost all of the gaming is iOS-based, and mostly games that can be played in very small chunks.
I do have games on my Mac, but those are also very rarely played. I did, recently, get a couple new games, but I haven't played them either.
I need to do a bit better, somehow, I think.
Especially the talk about gamers, and having console machines. They mentioned gamers having consoles. And I've got several sitting around.
I've got a Turbo Duo (I had a Turbo Grafx as well, but got rid of that a long time ago), a Dreamcast (pissed that I recently went looking for Crazy Taxi for that, and couldn't find it), a Playstation or two (not sure if any of them still work, though), a Playstation II (still gets used occasionally for DDR-related exercise), and a Wii (which I enjoyed for a while, but haven't turned on in several years).
Mostly, I was amused because I do have several around (actually, I'd forgotten a couple of them), but none of mine are even recent, let alone current, and they rarely get turned on.
I did recently turn on the Duo to play around with Bomberman (wanted to see if I could get the Saxophone powerup again). But other than occasional DDR (and even more occasional Karaoke Revolution games), I don't use any of them anymore.
And none of them really for gaming, per se.
I'm not sure what that says about me, really, but I thought it was interesting. And I wonder whether that sort of thing is typical.
These days, almost all of the gaming is iOS-based, and mostly games that can be played in very small chunks.
I do have games on my Mac, but those are also very rarely played. I did, recently, get a couple new games, but I haven't played them either.
I need to do a bit better, somehow, I think.
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.
20140502
Note on Ahrendts
I hadn't noticed that the hiring of Angela Ahrendts to be the head of Apple's retail operation makes her Apple's first female executive. Good for hiring her, I guess, but they still need to do better. (h/t @counternotions)
Culling shards
Something got me to take a look at my program CDs this morning. And it was an interesting exploration. I found install disks for MacOS 9.2.1 (and another version of OS9 that isn't labeled), 10.1, 10.2, 10.3.7, 10.4, 10.4.5, 10.5, 10.6, and 10.6.2.
The surprises are that I couldn't find any 10.0 or 10.7 disks (I know 10.8 and 10.9 were just downloads), and that only .2, .4, .5, and .6 were commercial disks (the others came with Powerbooks G4 (pismo and titanium), a PowerPC Mac Mini, a MacBook Pro, and an iMac 27" 2009).
Now I'm trying to figure out if there's any reason to keep any or all of them around. I'm leaning towards no.
The surprises are that I couldn't find any 10.0 or 10.7 disks (I know 10.8 and 10.9 were just downloads), and that only .2, .4, .5, and .6 were commercial disks (the others came with Powerbooks G4 (pismo and titanium), a PowerPC Mac Mini, a MacBook Pro, and an iMac 27" 2009).
Now I'm trying to figure out if there's any reason to keep any or all of them around. I'm leaning towards no.
Grudge-dome entered
I wasn't able to watch all of the Habs/Bruins game last night, but did see most of it. I think I turned it on at the beginning of the second period, and watched through the end of the first overtime (I knew I wasn't going to be able to stay away through the period break).
So I missed Subban's goal to open the scoring, but did see Bourque's goal to extend the lead (he's still dead to me, though). After that, it felt like the Canadiens kept playing well most of the way through the period, although the Fenwick chart shows that the rest of the game was pretty solidly dominated by the Bruins.
And it certainly felt like the Bruins were dominating for the last five minutes or so of the second, and solidly through the third and initial OT.
And, of course, that OT indicates that the Bruins did come back in the third. In fact, they scored three, but Montreal did match one of those so that they never fell behind.
Although the Habs did get a couple chances in that OT, they spent most of the period playing defense.
But they got a break thirty seconds or so from the end, as they got a power play. That didn't win it for them, but gave them some momentum going into the second extra time. And in the second extra period, they got another break, as they got a second power play four minutes in. And that did win it for them, as it took only seven seconds for PK to notch his second of the night and give them the lead in the series.
In the end, shots were 51-33, and Fenwick 68-44, so things don't look so good for the Canadiens, going forward. But they've got a lead now, and have seized home ice advantage, so it's not terrible either. I'm still calling it in favor of Boston, but it's much narrower, now (and it certainly wouldn't break my heart to be wrong).
So I missed Subban's goal to open the scoring, but did see Bourque's goal to extend the lead (he's still dead to me, though). After that, it felt like the Canadiens kept playing well most of the way through the period, although the Fenwick chart shows that the rest of the game was pretty solidly dominated by the Bruins.
And it certainly felt like the Bruins were dominating for the last five minutes or so of the second, and solidly through the third and initial OT.
And, of course, that OT indicates that the Bruins did come back in the third. In fact, they scored three, but Montreal did match one of those so that they never fell behind.
Although the Habs did get a couple chances in that OT, they spent most of the period playing defense.
But they got a break thirty seconds or so from the end, as they got a power play. That didn't win it for them, but gave them some momentum going into the second extra time. And in the second extra period, they got another break, as they got a second power play four minutes in. And that did win it for them, as it took only seven seconds for PK to notch his second of the night and give them the lead in the series.
In the end, shots were 51-33, and Fenwick 68-44, so things don't look so good for the Canadiens, going forward. But they've got a lead now, and have seized home ice advantage, so it's not terrible either. I'm still calling it in favor of Boston, but it's much narrower, now (and it certainly wouldn't break my heart to be wrong).
20140501
Followup on FCC
Two things of note. Wheeler, the head of the FCC, has come out and said that his plan actually will preserve net neutrality, and that if it doesn't, he might declare broadband providers to be "common carriers".
The first part of that is certainly not true. The second part would be encouraging, if I believed that he actually meant it. Declaring them to have common carrier status would be huge, but I don't believe him when he says that he might do it.
Separately, in a speech at a cable lobbying event, he said that he would seek to override states laws that forbid municipal broadband provisions. Color me skeptical on that, but that would be huge, if true. That would force the companies to potentially face competition, which would make them clean up their acts.
Again, he's probably lying (his choice of where to say that is certainly interesting, though), but that would be fantastic news, if true. Because if there's competition, then net neutrality becomes largely a non-issue, because nobody would choose a company that violated that if there was an alternative.
The first part of that is certainly not true. The second part would be encouraging, if I believed that he actually meant it. Declaring them to have common carrier status would be huge, but I don't believe him when he says that he might do it.
Separately, in a speech at a cable lobbying event, he said that he would seek to override states laws that forbid municipal broadband provisions. Color me skeptical on that, but that would be huge, if true. That would force the companies to potentially face competition, which would make them clean up their acts.
Again, he's probably lying (his choice of where to say that is certainly interesting, though), but that would be fantastic news, if true. Because if there's competition, then net neutrality becomes largely a non-issue, because nobody would choose a company that violated that if there was an alternative.
First round finishes
I didn't get to watch as much as I'd've liked, last night. I watched the second and third periods of the Flyers and Rangers, and most of the first period of the Avs and Wild.
So I saw everything that mattered of the former game, and very little of the latter. And missed all of the Kings and Sharks, which was actually the series I most wanted to watch.
The Rangers got off to a quick start (well, relative to my watching) as they got a power play in less than forty seconds. They didn't score on it, but did threaten quite a bit, and managed to score shortly after it ended. Zuccarello tossed the puck toward the front of the net from the half wall, and found Carcillo's stick as he deflected it into the net.
The Rangers kept the upper hand through the rest of the period (including an impressive flurry right before time expired), but only managed one more goal, eight and a half minutes after the first.
In the third, it was clear that the Rangers were in lead-protect mode, and were mostly focused on keeping the Flyers out. I'm not at all a fan of that kind of "prevent defense" mentality; it focuses on preventing very small percentage plays, and concedes a lot of larger percentage plays (larger in aggregate, not individually). And overall, it works out much worse.
But it worked out ok, as the Rangers were able to keep the Flyers to only one goal in the third.
So the Rangers will face the Pens, which should be an interesting series.
The timing worked out pretty well, as I flipped over to the Wild/Avs game just at the opening faceoff. And it started out very well for the Avs, as they got a power play goal in the third minute. Things were looking pretty good for them until a mystery tripping penalty call was made on Wilson a minute later.
Minnesota didn't score, but they definitely seized the better of the play for the next several minutes, and Koivu put one in about five minutes later. Things looked up again for the Avs when, several minutes later, McGinn got it past Kuemper to restore their lead.
Unfortunately, that was about when I had to turn the game off, so I missed the Wild coming back and winning in overtime. Very disappointing.
I've already seen some people blaming Varly for "failing to hold the lead", but that's some terrible "analysis". It isn't any easier to hold a lead (from a goalie's perspective, anyway) than it is to build one. It's frustrating, but no goalie will ever be so predictable as to not give up a lead. Sometimes he'll make the save, sometimes he won't; whether the team is ahead, tied, or behind has no bearing on that question.
I'll go out on a limb and say that the better team won. Possessionally, the Wild were much better than the Avs this season, despite their respective records. So the Wild should have been favored (I don't really know if they were, generally), coming in. Much of the difference in records comes from Varly playing considerably over his head (ie: more than an entire percentage point better than his career average), to the tune of twenty goals over the season. And there was no reason to expect that to continue in the playoffs (it was possible, but equally possible that he'd play significantly worse than his career numbers).
Oh, and on another goalie note, I was amused to see that a) another goalie was pulled (I believe that makes twelve for the playoffs, so far), and that b) the team pulling the goalie actually won (I think that's a first for the season). It's a bit of a sign that, in the thirteen minutes and change that Bryz played, he only needed to stop one shot on goal. That's some domination.
Anyway, I was a little disappointed, both because I like Varly (domestic violence aside) and because I used to enjoy watching the Avs play (haven't had that opportunity in a long time).
Which brings us to the last game, the Kings/Sharks game that I entirely missed. I saw a bunch of tweets yesterday that the Sharks were going to fold like a cheap suit, and it would be easy to say that that's what happened. But possession numbers show that the game was very close from start to finish, and the difference really comes down to goaltending.
Quick stopped 39 of 40, while Niemi only stopped 25 of 28 (two empty net goals gave the final score).
That actually makes it look like the Sharks had a big edge in possession, but they really didn't, as their lead in Fenwick only came in the last five minutes or so, with LA focused on maintaining their lead (which is to say that you'd expect a large shot lead in that situation). In fact, 5v5 close Fenwick was dead even in the game.
I wonder how extreme the overreaction will be from Sharks fans and management. Well, actually, given the ages of the key players, there might not be such a thing as an overreaction. But if you were just to evaluate expectations, without accounting for age-related decline, you'd say they were merely unlucky (or "Caps West").
Anyway, all of that leaves us with an all-LA series and a very North-South (Chicago/Minnesota) series in the West. And a small grundge match (Rangers/Penguins) and a large one (Bruins/Habs) in the East. I feel pretty comfortable picking Chicago, LA, and Boston to win their series; I'd give a small edge to the Pens in theirs, but wouldn't go so far as to say I'm comfortable picking them to win (especially given the odds of Fleury remembering that he's a pretty terrible playoff goalie).
So I saw everything that mattered of the former game, and very little of the latter. And missed all of the Kings and Sharks, which was actually the series I most wanted to watch.
The Rangers got off to a quick start (well, relative to my watching) as they got a power play in less than forty seconds. They didn't score on it, but did threaten quite a bit, and managed to score shortly after it ended. Zuccarello tossed the puck toward the front of the net from the half wall, and found Carcillo's stick as he deflected it into the net.
The Rangers kept the upper hand through the rest of the period (including an impressive flurry right before time expired), but only managed one more goal, eight and a half minutes after the first.
In the third, it was clear that the Rangers were in lead-protect mode, and were mostly focused on keeping the Flyers out. I'm not at all a fan of that kind of "prevent defense" mentality; it focuses on preventing very small percentage plays, and concedes a lot of larger percentage plays (larger in aggregate, not individually). And overall, it works out much worse.
But it worked out ok, as the Rangers were able to keep the Flyers to only one goal in the third.
So the Rangers will face the Pens, which should be an interesting series.
The timing worked out pretty well, as I flipped over to the Wild/Avs game just at the opening faceoff. And it started out very well for the Avs, as they got a power play goal in the third minute. Things were looking pretty good for them until a mystery tripping penalty call was made on Wilson a minute later.
Minnesota didn't score, but they definitely seized the better of the play for the next several minutes, and Koivu put one in about five minutes later. Things looked up again for the Avs when, several minutes later, McGinn got it past Kuemper to restore their lead.
Unfortunately, that was about when I had to turn the game off, so I missed the Wild coming back and winning in overtime. Very disappointing.
I've already seen some people blaming Varly for "failing to hold the lead", but that's some terrible "analysis". It isn't any easier to hold a lead (from a goalie's perspective, anyway) than it is to build one. It's frustrating, but no goalie will ever be so predictable as to not give up a lead. Sometimes he'll make the save, sometimes he won't; whether the team is ahead, tied, or behind has no bearing on that question.
I'll go out on a limb and say that the better team won. Possessionally, the Wild were much better than the Avs this season, despite their respective records. So the Wild should have been favored (I don't really know if they were, generally), coming in. Much of the difference in records comes from Varly playing considerably over his head (ie: more than an entire percentage point better than his career average), to the tune of twenty goals over the season. And there was no reason to expect that to continue in the playoffs (it was possible, but equally possible that he'd play significantly worse than his career numbers).
Oh, and on another goalie note, I was amused to see that a) another goalie was pulled (I believe that makes twelve for the playoffs, so far), and that b) the team pulling the goalie actually won (I think that's a first for the season). It's a bit of a sign that, in the thirteen minutes and change that Bryz played, he only needed to stop one shot on goal. That's some domination.
Anyway, I was a little disappointed, both because I like Varly (domestic violence aside) and because I used to enjoy watching the Avs play (haven't had that opportunity in a long time).
Which brings us to the last game, the Kings/Sharks game that I entirely missed. I saw a bunch of tweets yesterday that the Sharks were going to fold like a cheap suit, and it would be easy to say that that's what happened. But possession numbers show that the game was very close from start to finish, and the difference really comes down to goaltending.
Quick stopped 39 of 40, while Niemi only stopped 25 of 28 (two empty net goals gave the final score).
That actually makes it look like the Sharks had a big edge in possession, but they really didn't, as their lead in Fenwick only came in the last five minutes or so, with LA focused on maintaining their lead (which is to say that you'd expect a large shot lead in that situation). In fact, 5v5 close Fenwick was dead even in the game.
I wonder how extreme the overreaction will be from Sharks fans and management. Well, actually, given the ages of the key players, there might not be such a thing as an overreaction. But if you were just to evaluate expectations, without accounting for age-related decline, you'd say they were merely unlucky (or "Caps West").
Anyway, all of that leaves us with an all-LA series and a very North-South (Chicago/Minnesota) series in the West. And a small grundge match (Rangers/Penguins) and a large one (Bruins/Habs) in the East. I feel pretty comfortable picking Chicago, LA, and Boston to win their series; I'd give a small edge to the Pens in theirs, but wouldn't go so far as to say I'm comfortable picking them to win (especially given the odds of Fleury remembering that he's a pretty terrible playoff goalie).
Torture within US
To add onto the torture that we know happened under US auspices at Guantanamo and Bagram, we now have the state of Oklahoma torturing a murderer to death.
Some of the cause of this has to do with availability of drugs used in executions; some drugs are only available from European sources, and the EU forbids sale of those drugs to the US for executions.
But whatever the cause, several days ago, an execution was botched terribly, resulting in the torturous death of a US Citizen. Is this what we want to be, as a country?
I've been a skeptic of the death penalty for some years now, largely due to the efforts of the Innocence Project, and seeing how often innocent people are put on death row (and executed). What is the worse crime? Letting a criminal (no matter how heinous their crime) live in a box for many years, or executing an innocent person?
I'd personally much rather see no one punished if we aren't sure about who is the right person. Despite the threshold for a murder conviction being "beyond all reasonable doubt", it's obvious that the justice system doesn't always get it right. Imagine the horror of being killed for something someone else did. I truly can't imagine how terrible that would be. And it happens. And if we kill the suspect, there's no way to right the injustice if that happens. Sorry, WHEN that happens.
But it becomes that much worse if the government can't even handle killing someone without doing something as horrific as the crime that put the person into prison. Two wrongs never make a right, and this just takes that to an extreme.
So, as a short-term "fix", I'd be happy to see Obama commute the sentences of all death row inmates in the country down to life without parole.
Aside from how much that would make right wing talking heads explode, it'd also prevent some terrible injustices.
Some of the cause of this has to do with availability of drugs used in executions; some drugs are only available from European sources, and the EU forbids sale of those drugs to the US for executions.
But whatever the cause, several days ago, an execution was botched terribly, resulting in the torturous death of a US Citizen. Is this what we want to be, as a country?
I've been a skeptic of the death penalty for some years now, largely due to the efforts of the Innocence Project, and seeing how often innocent people are put on death row (and executed). What is the worse crime? Letting a criminal (no matter how heinous their crime) live in a box for many years, or executing an innocent person?
I'd personally much rather see no one punished if we aren't sure about who is the right person. Despite the threshold for a murder conviction being "beyond all reasonable doubt", it's obvious that the justice system doesn't always get it right. Imagine the horror of being killed for something someone else did. I truly can't imagine how terrible that would be. And it happens. And if we kill the suspect, there's no way to right the injustice if that happens. Sorry, WHEN that happens.
But it becomes that much worse if the government can't even handle killing someone without doing something as horrific as the crime that put the person into prison. Two wrongs never make a right, and this just takes that to an extreme.
So, as a short-term "fix", I'd be happy to see Obama commute the sentences of all death row inmates in the country down to life without parole.
Aside from how much that would make right wing talking heads explode, it'd also prevent some terrible injustices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)