Brandon Live!

As you may have heard, Time Warner is experimenting with a new pricing scheme in which they limit the amount of data users are allowed to transfer each month over their cable internet service.

They claim that this is to manage costs.  But as Dave Burstein (of DSL Prime) said, that’s not really it at all.  That’s the same reason that Comcast gives for their throttling nonsense, which clearly hasn’t gone over well with heavy ‘net users.

But if that were the real reason, why would Verizon be so anxious to give me 20mbps in both directions and not throttle or limit a single thing?  Well let’s see… what other possible reason could Cable companies have to stop you from downloading large files like, oh I don’t know… TV shows and movies?

Fact is… cable companies have an opportunity here that they are wasting because they want to cling to a Cable TV and PayPerView-based business model that is quickly being eroded by iTunes, Xbox, Amazon, Netflix, etc.

But instead of capitalizing on this change, by offering users more of what they need in order to leverage it (ie. faster speeds) for a reasonable price increase, they’d rather discourage you from using these new IP-based offerings.

I guess they saw how well fighting the digital trend worked for those other media companies and decided that they can alienate their customers and lock them into outdated business models with the best of them.

Fortunately, some of us have viable alternatives.  And with moves like this, companies like Verizon with FIOS will have even more people lined up to pay them for service.

One of my favorite bands, Radiohead, is now being joined by Oasis, Jamiroquai, and others who are all choosing to circumvent the established record industry and actually give away their albums on their own websites, free of charge. 

Could this be the beginning of the end for the obsolete conglomorate known as the RIAA?  At the very least, I think it’s going to redefine their purpose in a way that won’t make those sue-happy dinosaurs happy.  Good riddance, I say.  They had their chance to get a clue and give users what they want.  Instead they treated their customers like the enemy and have tried to squeeze every last penny out of something that costs them nothing via extortion and price fixing.  Now this organization has outlived its usefulness, and bands are realizing it.

Following up on my last post, Walt Mossberg himself decided to drop by my comments section to justify his position. As I said in another comment answering his, I believe his explanation that the 50% difference in cost includes the price of an add-on WiFi adapter to be quite reasonable. However, the article makes no mention of that and in my mind it’s just as reasonable for any reader to believe that figure is in error.

What’s more, I still believe his response to my initial e-mail was uncalled for, and that his suggestion that I should apologize to him is rather absurd. However, I’ve been wrong before. So rather than arguing any further, I’ll simply the share the e-mails in question and let you decide who overreacted.

From: Brandon Paddock
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 1:34 PM,
Subject: Question about Apple TV article (error?)

Hi there,

I’m curious about this quote from your Apple TV article.

“But the comparable Xbox costs 50% more than Apple TV, is much larger and stores only half as much material.”

Where does the 50% number come from? I would think the Xbox 360 with equivalent functionality would be the Core System, which is priced identically to the Apple TV box ($299). I say equivalent functionality because as far as I’m aware, the Apple TV doesn’t yet store anything on its hard drive, and its primary purpose is to stream data from an iTunes-equipped PC. As a bonus, the 360 can be equipped with a hard drive at a later date (possibly a much larger one) and play games and DVDs.

However, more concerning is that the 50% number doesn’t even make sense for the most expensive Xbox 360 system, which is priced at $399 (thus a 30% number would make more sense, or you could just be clear and say $399). Thus I have to believe the 50% number to be in error. If not, I’d be interested in a clarification of where it came from.

Thanks,
Brandon Paddock
http://brandonlive.com

From: Walt Mossberg
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 1:42 PM
To: Brandon Paddock
Cc: Katherine Boehret
Subject: Re: Question about Apple TV article (error?)

Boy, you really have to read more carefully before accusing people of error. The $299 Apple TV has a 40 GB hard disk and can sync with any Mac or Windows computer, storing the media from those computers, PLUS stream from five more Mac or Windows computers and stream directly from the internet.

Next time, READ the article before emailing.

Walt

Walt insists he read my message “word-for-word” before responding. Doesn’t look that way to me, though.

This afternoon I was reading an article about the new Apple TV device written by Walt Mossberg and Katherine Boehret of the Wall Street Journal.

As I was reading it, this line jumped out at me:

But the comparable Xbox costs 50% more than Apple TV, is much larger and stores only half as much material.

50% more? Where did they get 50%? The Apple TV is $299, and the most expensive Xbox 360 is $399. By my admittedly hasty calculation, that appears to be about 30% more, not 50. Curious about the origin of this figure, I clicked the “Email” link at the bottom of the page and politely inquired about it. I concluded my message, “Thus I have to believe the 50% number to be in error. If not, I’d be interested in a clarification of where it came from.”

I also suggested that a comparison between the Apple TV and the equally priced Xbox 360 model might be more appropriate than they had suggested - as the main functionality of the Apple TV doesn’t make use of its 40GB hard drive, making it of questionable advantage with the current software. Surely the Xbox’s ability to play games and DVDs (plus support any resolution including old TVs and the top-end 1080p) could help balance out that largely ethereal advantage.

I received a response within 10 minutes from Mossberg himself, which normally I’d find to be quite impressive. Unfortunately, what I got was an unprofessional flame mail that didn’t address my concern. Instead, it very rudely suggested that I was too uninformed to comment on the Apple TV. He said that if I thought there was an error, it was because I didn’t read the article “carefully” enough. He concluded his message saying, “Next time, READ the article before emailing.”

Perhaps Walt should take his own advice and READ his e-mail before flaming a concerned reader. Even if the error wasn’t in plain sight, his response was uncalled for. Who knows, maybe he’s just having a bad day. That still doesn’t excuse such an unprofessional response from someone of his supposed journalistic integrity. Walt, you need to chill out. Maybe someone needs a vacation?

So tomorrow the Zune launches.  It’s a good device with a slick UI.  But I’m not buying one for some of the same reasons I don’t own an iPod.  And apparently I’m not the only one.  But I might get one eventually - to understand why, let me explain why I currently don’t feel like I need one:

1. I don’t need one in my car.  My car has a built-in MP3 player that reads from two 4GB SD cards (which I can easily swap in and out) with a great UI that I can control from my steering wheel.
2. I don’t need one on the plane.  I have a laptop for watching videos / movies, or I could watch them on my phone which has the same size screen as the Zune.
3. I have a 4GB SanDisk “Nano” clone.  I fill it up with music from Urge, and I basically use it at the gym and pretty much no where else.  I picked it up for that exact purpose and it works great since I can keep it in my shorts pocket and not even feel that it’s there (And not have to wear one of those goofy armbands).

So why would I buy a Zune?  If some genius decides to make it accessible as a storage device for my Xbox 360, where I can download videos from the upcoming Xbox Live Video Marketplace.

Why would this be such a brilliant coup?  Because right now you can download TV shows and movies to an iPod from iTunes.  I bet Zune has or will have the same thing on a PC.  That’s great, but I don’t really want to watch TV shows on a 3-inch screen most of the time.  But if I could have my Xbox 360 download my favorite TV shows in high-def straight to the Zune - and then let me play them back on the Zune or on my Samsung DLP using the 360… Now you’ve offered me something quite valuable.

There is an alternative, though.  If I can buy the same TV shows from the Zune Marketplace without actually owning a Zune, and then stream them to my 360 off of my PC’s harddrive - that would work almost as nicely.  But the Zune-as-big-hard-drive approach could really do wonders for the storage-starved Xbox 360, offering an answer to the upgradeable, larger PS3 hard drive(s) while still putting money directly in the Xbox/Zune division’s pocket.

Last night I took a JetBlue flight from SeaTac to JFK in NY.  After a long car ride I made it to my mom’s house in Jersey. 

I’m here largely for this weekend’s large concert events at Randall’s Island.  The line-up is as follows:

Main Stage:
Dave Matthews Band (headlining both nights)
Gov’t Mule (Saturday only)
David Gray (Sunday only)
Bela Fleck and the Flecktones (both days)

Second Stage:
Slightly Stoopid
Yonder Mountain String Band
Tea Leaf Green

I currently have a spare ticket for each night (”preferred lawn” tonight, and section 101 tomorrow night).  If anyone wants to buy one or just chill at one of the shows, give my cell a call:  425-591-4982

I’ll be back in Seattle on Tuesday night.

Actually, URGE is awesome.  I still think they should fix the authorization the way I described.  But I don’t even think it will be a big problem for me.

Why?  This is the first service where I don’t feel like I actually need to download the tracks.  The library integration in WMP 11 is so damn good and the instant search-as-you-type is brilliant.  So far the selection seems better than any of the other stores.  I’ve already found tracks I couldn’t find on Yahoo, Napster, or iTunes.

Plus I’m really digging the “Acoustic Chill” radio station.  It’s the sort of “radio station” that you can hit “skip” if you don’t like a song.  So it’s really just an on-the-fly playlist being streamed to you.  But I like it a lot.  The whole experience just rocks.  So I’m cancelling Napster and I’m going to pay for URGE when my 14-day trial is up. 

My URGE wishlist:

1)  Higher bit-rate streams.  Right now downloads are 192kbps WMA, which is great.  But the streams are 128kbps, which encourages me to still download stuff when it feels like I really shouldn’t have to.

2)  The authorization/activation fixes I outlined in my earlier post about Napster.

They have the same policy as Napster.  See previous post for details.

I must say though - the UI integration in WMP 11 is fucking slick.  Please, please fix the authorization issues!!!

This month’s winner of my award for the worst ever is Napster.  Allow me to explain…

So last week I switched from Windows 2003 x64 Edition back to Windows Media Center Edition - the idea being that now that this computer is in my bedroom at the new house (and no longer in the big open “living room” area of my old apartment) I want to use it as a TV - for when Jon is watching the big TV, or when I want to enjoy the comforts of my bed (or hypothetically, if someone else did).

So all is well and good and Media Center is up and running just fine.  Except for one thing.  Napster.  I can’t play any of the music I downloaded from Napster.  And they tell me they’re going to hold it hostage until July 16th, when I will be given the opportunity to repent for my sins and “deactivate” one of my PCs.  And by “Old PC” I mean one of the OS installations from the same PC that was formatted away.

And when that happens, I will then have to wait another 30 days before I can “activate” my laptop and listen to music there.  So right now, the only place I can listen to my Napster tracks is in my living room on the evil little Mac Mini (also running Windows Media Center). But they’ll keep taking the same amount of my money regardless.

I’ve dealt with computer “activation” for DRM’d media before.  It’s a required process for the music I bought from MSN Music.  However they handle it a bit differently.  You see, they allow 5 simultaneous activations and you can activate/deactivate as frequently as you like.  They do require that you deactivate from the computer you want removed, but I’ve gotten good at remembering to do that before I blow away any OS installations on any of my PCs.  And it takes about 2 minutes to ask them via the online help to reset any orphaned PCs so I know it’s not the end of the world if I forget.

Napster allows only 3 computers to be active at once.  However they let you deactivate a PC without actually connecting from it.  Handy, I thought.  Until I tried it and it told me I could only deactivate once every 30 days.  At this point I already had 3 orphaned or soon-to-be orphaned activations.  I had direct access to machines I wanted to remove from their list, but that didn’t matter to them.  One per 30 days, regardless of where you do it from.  This is crap.

So now I need to investigate how Urge works, to see if they offer a better solution.  Still, switching services and re-downloading tracks is a pain I’d hoped to avoid. 

My ideal solution (other than no stupid DRM) would be this:

1)  Give me 5 activations.  Three isn’t enough because I want my music on my desktop, my laptop, my media center, and maybe at work.  And an extra one never hurts.

2)  Let me deactivate anytime I want if I have access to the PC, just like MSN Music does now.

3)  Let me deactivate an “orphaned” PC once every 30 days, like Napster does now.

4)  As a stretch, give me “guest” activations where I can unlock my music for a short period of time, like 3-5 days or something.  Give me a handful of these every month.  This would be great when visiting friends or family and I could show them how great subscription music services are.

This seems reasonable enough to me.  If no one is offering this now, they should be.

Tonight I discovered a new blog following my favorite band’s summer tour which recently started.  It’s called The Blog That Jane Likes.

They have lyrics and MP3 downloads of 5 or 6 new songs that DMB has played since starting the tour a couple weeks ago.  And before you ask, yes - downloading MP3s of DMB’s live performances is 100% legal and encouraged by the band.

And let me tell you, so many brand new songs is like Christmas for a hardcore DMB fan like myself!