The Rotten Apple of Publishing
Published May 18th, 2012 | 
I’ll be the first to admit when I am wrong. While I’ve long been a vocal critic of Apple’s “agency model” ebook pricing scheme, I never actually believed there was any collusion between Apple and the major publishing firms. But then, all these lawsuits happened, and what we are learning is that not only was there collusion, but Steve Jobs, himself, strong-armed reluctant publishers into the deal that gave Apple “most favored nation” status and fixed prices. Jobs basically sold publisher on the idea that Apple’s way was the only viable option for them.
According to Jobs, the agency model would level the playing field for publishers,end Amazon’s monopoly on the e-book market, foster competition and reduce digital piracy. Let’s see … how did that work out?
Did it reduce piracy? Nope. In fact, since the iBookstore was released for the iPad using the agency model, e-book piracy has spiked.
Did the agency model end Amazon’s monopoly? Not really. Sure, Amazon lost some of their market share to other players, but that would’ve happened anyway due to the simple fact that there emerged other players. Amazon still basically owns the ebook market as of this writing with somewhere between 65 and 70 percent of the market share.
Did the agency model foster competition? Again, not really. Other players emerged, but the agency model forced everyone to follow Apple’s rules. Those rules benefited publishers in the sense that they were able to earn a profits on many books, but it hurt consumers in the sense that they were paying more for those e books (in many cases, more than the hard copy).
What bugs me is that the publishers woes were self-inflicted. They never bothered to look for another option. They were susceptible to Apple’s machinations because they were looking for a shortcut. Dumb. Really dumb.
* This post is sponsored by car title loans philadelphia.
How Do You View Video Content?
Published May 1st, 2012 | Direct TV continues to compete with cable for subscribers, but I’m thinking it may ultimately be a lost cause. Or at least there are now way more options for viewing movies and other content. What, with the IPad and Kindle and services such as Amazon Prime, the iTunes store and Netflix. There’s also Hulu and rumor has it that Google is going to be getting into the game(they already own YouTube). So maybe it doesn’t matter how many commercials cable runs or how many sales for dx3 direct tv.
I currently view at least 60 percent of all video content online. Today, I spent about 90 percent of my viewing time online. Sooner or later, I suspect all of these subscriber-based services will be available through an Internet connection. Cable or dx3 doesn’t matter. In utilizing the Internet, these services have just about conceded the point.
Bin Laden Death Anniversary is Sour Grapes for Republicans
Published May 1st, 2012 | The first thing I heard on the news this morning while eating my bowl of Life breakfast cereal, was some Republican talking head whining about Obama “celebrating” Osama Bin Laden’s death. Saying that the president is “politicizing the issue.” Let me get this straight: Bush used the events of 9/11 to prop up his failed presidency for eight fucking years! Every time Bush dipped in the polls, there would suddenly news of some new threat (terrorist plots btw which turned out to be a lot of smoke and mirrors). Bush started a new war in Iraq by lying to the American people and preying on their fears. And let’s not forget “mission accomplished.” And in those eight years, we got further away from the initial goal of the so-called “war on terror.” The Repugs had no problem with this. Yet, they are outraged when the current president acknowledges an accomplishment of his administration. Think about this: Clinton couldn’t get Osama. Bush definitely didn’t get Osama. Obama came into office, changed the war strategy and after, a careful intelligence operation to verify Bin Laden’s whereabouts, ordered a brazen assault on the most notorious terrorist in our era even though he had much to lose if the mission failed.
Is Obama wrong to use a major accomplishment of his presidency to make the case for re-election? I don’t think so. Is he wrong to say, Romney wouldn’t have made the same decision? Perhaps, but it’s not that outrageous to suggest that Romney wouldn’t have had the balls to do what Obama did. Romney has already demonstrated that he’s not a man of much real conviction. He’s self-serving, indecisive and follows whatever direction the political winds blow. Not having any military or foreign policy experience, Romney would have follow what the “experts” were saying about the Bin Laden mission and, by all accounts the “experts” thought it was too big of a risk. Romney more likely than not would have calculated that the odds of failure and it’s negative impact on his own approval ratings wouldn’t have been worth it. And prior to the successful outcome, didn’t he specifically say that going after Osama wasn’t a priority for him? Seriously, I cannot imagine Romney dealing with the crap that Obama has had to deal with. So if Obama is politicizing Bin Laden’s death, is it really worse than Romney and his fellow Repugs politicizing the idea that Obama is playing politics? Makes about as much sense as an HIV patient in New York travelling across the country to get a blood test in Anaheim CA. Admit it Repugs, if Obama was one of you, you’d be setting off fireworks and masturbating on Fox news over this anniversary.
At the end of the day, the choice of who will be president is as much about character as it is about accomplishments. You can make the case that Obama’s accomplishments fell short of the goal depending upon how high you set the bar for him, but Romney has very few real accomplishments and he’s demonstrated time and again as a politician that his character is suspect.
