Category: Imported

I’m not sure if anyone has posted similar images yet, but if you search around in the world of Live Local’s Streetside, you can find images of the van taking the pictures reflected in buildings.  Credit for the idea goes to Lucas Curley of Intellitronics.  I pointed him to the preview and within minutes he said that he was trying to find a glass building to catch a glimpse of the van.  I managed to find a reflection first.  Here’s the clearest shots of the van I could manage:

  

(images captured from http://preview.local.live.com/ )

Life gets busy, but the world keeps on moving…  Here’s some random things that have been piling up in my Blog This folder:

Think you know how to tie your shoes?  Read this: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2006/03/its_hard.html

Vista seems to be trimming features: http://feeds.ziffdavis.com/ziffdavis/MicrosoftWatch?m=336

Google entering the Word Processor Market, will Writely be good enough? http://37signals.com/svn/archives2/what_googles_acquisition_of_writely_means.php

Instant Upgrades for Vista: http://www.msfn.org/comments.php?shownews=16227

Windows Live Local Previews Street-level imagery & city drive-through navigation: http://www.liveside.net/comments.php?shownews=90

Steve Rubal says it’s not about traffic: http://www.micropersuasion.com/2006/02/its_not_about_t.html (I agree, it’s about being heard…)

43 Folders hops on the rss subsciption with exiration bandwagon: http://www.43folders.com/2006/02/24/rss-features/

 

 

I’ve taken the step of rebranding Blobservations.net as One Man Shouting.  The new site can be found at http://onemanshouting.com and the new feed url is http://feeds.feedburner.com/onemanshouting

The decision to rebrand is mostly because I found it hard to talk about “Blobservations”.  It was a nice gimmicky name when I first started the blog, and I thought it read ok, but it just didn’t hold out in conversations.  I always found myself explaining it (“It’s like observations with a B L on the front…”), and quite honestly I felt a bit silly saying it.  This was never really a problem until I attended Search Champs this past January, and I found that I actually had occasion to talk about my blog with strangers.

The new name will hopefully be a little easier on the tongue, and I think it also reflects my blogging style a little bit better.  While I enjoy it when I get into conversations in the blogosphere, and I do occasionally link to other bloggers, a good portion of my blogging is more as an outlet for me.  I have an opinion about something, or an interesting idea, and I want to put it out into the ether.  I shout – You’re welcome to listen…

Welcome to One Man Shouting…

Microsoft has finally released the official product lineup for Windows Vista.  They are going from a two SKU model in XP (with later additions of Tablet, Media Center & Starter Editions), to a whopping 6 + N SKU’s for Vista.  This is bad for several reasons.

Brand Expectations:  One of the core strengths of the Microsoft OS is that people know what to expect.  By selling all of these different versions, you are confusing your brand image.  Many of the more advanced features are available only on the higher SKU’s.  If someone asks how to do something related to one of these higher-end tasks (like file encryption), we must first deduce what edition they are running (Here’s where the consumer says “I don’t know, it’s Windows!  I got Vista, you told me to get Vista!”). People (non-geeks) already feel that they have to learn too much to utilize computers, now you’re asking them to learn more in order to buy computers.

People Will Buy on Price:  Many businesses and consumers will buy whatever is cheapest.  This is bad for many reasons.  First, it’s less revenue for Microsoft.  Second, after these people buy the cheaper SKU, they will often be less satisfied as customers.  I’ve always hated the XP Home SKU, since so many small businesses have purchased it (usually on cheap prebuilt machines) only to find out that it didn’t give them all of the functionality they needed.

How could Microsoft have done this better?

Option 1:  Two SKU’s, Vista Home & Vista Business.  This gives folks a clear message about who each version is intended for.  Beyond that, if you must have exclusive features, sell cheap feature packs.  Instead of having a separate CD or download required for these feature packs, put them all on the original disc, and let the consumer purchase activations quickly and easily over the phone or internet.  Heck, you could even offer freebies (like “Try the media center feature pack for four weeks free starting July 4th, no credit card required!”).  This makes it a social experiment where everyone can try out the cool features, and decide if it’s worth a subscription or one-time fee.

Option 2:  Come up with a different brand for the Home and Business lines.  The home SKU’s could be Vista, the business ones could be some other two-syllable word that embodies productivity, efficiency, collaboration, or whatever other feel-good buzzwords you need to cling to.

I guess it’s too late, the ship has already sailed on this one…

I’m reading stories all over the blogosphere and technology news about how the big network players are trying to leverage their control of the internet and do away with network neutrality.  Daniel Berninger asserts that this development will destroy the internet as we know it.  Many others are chiming in.

While I’m sure many are sensationalizing this, I’d like to put forward an option.

Throughout the history of this country, the government has had no qualms about using its power of eminent domain to build infrastructure that will serve the common good.  That’s why we are able to have highways, decent roads, schools, public buildings, and many other institutions fairly well spread out through the country.

The argument goes like this:  The internet is infrastructure that serves the public good.  It enables commerce, communication, government operations, pretty much anything that requires communication can leverage the internet to make services more accessible and interoperable.  If the actions of the owners of the network are beginning to threaten the public good, then the government has a responsibility to step in.  This is even more relevant because the government has subsidized many major improvements to the buildout of the internet.

Now I’m not sure that I’d want the government taking over the internet.  I could see it falling in the lap of the FCC, and I just can’t imagine that would serve the common good (No offense intended to the fine folks at the FCC).  But the recent Supreme Court decision on eminent domain makes that a mute point.  We just need a couple of private development corporations to propose to some local or state governments that they could better serve the public good than the current owners of those assets.  The government, even at the local or state level could step in and condemn and transfer the assets to a new, more responsible steward.

Now, like other nuclear options, this one might server better as a threat than through actual implementation.  If a few heavyweight locals (NYC, LA, etc.) let the networks know this option was on the table, I’d be willing to bet that it would never have to be implemented.  The downside to this option being on the table is that it might discourage investment in new infrastructure, but I think that it would be better than letting the network degrade into a disjointed, fractured, and much less useful internet.

Update 6/19/2006: Mike at TechDirt links to a Weekly Standard article by Andy Kessler exploring this same idea.  Interesting additions to the discussion at both sites.