This is an obvious move by Apple, and expected for a while…the negotiations with the major movie studios are in various stages, and Apple CEO Steve Jobs, who has been personally involved in the talks, initially proposed selling all films at a flat price of $9.99 — an offer the studios flatly rejected.
Studios want variable pricing, much like music labels wanted for their downloads on iTunes but failed to make happen after opposition from Jobs. Apple gives TV and music companies a 70% wholesale rate for their downloads through iTunes, and is offering the same to film providers.
There are signs Apple may bend, the story says, and allow price points ranging from $9.99 to $19.99 in order to differentiate older titles from new releases.

11:21:39 AM    comment   

Have you ever wondered how much power your game consoles are sucking up? The next generation consoles like the Xbox 360 have remote control activation and standby-charging, which means there's going to be some power draw even when you've shut down the machine. DX Gaming tested all the consoles in the last two generations, and as we suspected, the Xbox 360 topped the charts for energy use.

When in standby mode, The 360 leaks 17.52kWh per year, resulting in $2.63 worth of energy loss at $0.15 a kWh. What's surprising is that the PS2 leaks just about the same amount of juice, even though it doesn't need to keep its wireless port active for turning on the console via the wireless controller.

When actually gaming, the Xbox 360 will run you $20.10 a year—including the leaked energy costs—when you estimate 2 hours of gaming per day. The Xbox comes in second with $8.17, and then the Playstation 2 with $5.91 (with almost half of that being leaked in standby). The console that costs the least to run? The Playstation 1, with just $0.92 in both leaked and actual played energy cost. Wow. Who would have thought you would be able to power your PS1 for less than a dollar a year? – Jason Chen

Game Console Energy Consumption [DX Gaming]

Image Courtesy DX Gaming

11:01:03 AM    comment   

This news about Nokia and Siemens merging their telecom carrier equipment businesses to form a new $30 billion joint venture company, made me think about two things: the low cost competition from China has everyone spooked, and more importantly, where does this leave Juniper Networks, which is dealing with what could be a problematic options-scandal related inquiry.

Siemens’ has been a key Juniper partner and reseller, just like Ericsson. Now if the new Nokia+Siemens is going to compete with Ericsson, then Juniper will be selling to both. It is also reselling its routers via Alcatel-Lucent combined company (though who knows what happens there.) Interesting turn of events: on one hand it could turn into a massive opportunity for Juniper, or well…

The news of the announcement did not surprise me at all. Talking about the low cost competition - Europe telecom vendors have been more severely impacted by the rise of Huawei and ZTE, so we in the United States are not realizing and panicking over these guys… yet.

10:57:37 AM    comment   

By Robert Young

Last week at a conference in New York City, the head of Fox Interactive Media, Ross Levinsohn, told the audience:

“More mainstream marketing on MySpace will be kept to the “well-lit” areas of the site, like the Books, Comedy, Film, and Games sections rather than on individual profile pages, which have less strict content controls–something many advertisers have expressed concerns about.” “We want to make it easier for marketers to work with us,” Levinsohn said.

I like the way Scott Karp reacted to the announcement when he wrote, “Sounds more like advertising will be roped off away from the action, like protesters at a Bush rally.” Heh.. funny! My reaction was similarly skeptical, because it seems that a traditional media mind set might be nudging them (FIM) in the wrong direction.

As most now realize, the fundamental problem that social networks face when trying to monetize through an advertising-driven business model is the lack of trust.  To be more explicit, while brand advertisers have historically trusted people as consumers, they do not trust them in the new role of producer (e.g. uncontrollable content).  Likewise, people who are armed with the power of interactivity are also demonstrating that they are increasingly distrustful of brand advertisers (e.g. ad-skipping).

In many ways, social networks today, at their current stage of evolution, are much like the currencies of underdeveloped nations… or countries that are politically unstable.  In such circumstances, governments must do all they can to create and engender trust among its nation’s constituents and institutions.  After all, what is money without the people’s trust… it’s just a devalued piece of worthless paper.

MySpace, and thus other social networks, are in a similar predicament. MySpace in particular, needs to be a catalyst for trust among its users and advertisers.  While taking a strategy of segregation (e.g. “roping off” brand-safe areas) might satisfy conservative advertisers and yield some dollars in the short term, such efforts will actually serve to undermine and limit the long-term viability of its business model by further exacerbating the distrust between users and advertisers.  Instead, what MySpace needs to do is to tackle the problem head-on by launching programs that ultimately create new levels of trust between its constituents where none existed before.

Given that broad, high-altitude view, let me now zoom in by proposing a specific program idea along the lines of what I’m talking about. Whether the idea, in and of itself, has any merit is not the point here; the objective is to demonstrate a direction that exemplifies how trust can be created between users and advertisers.

Imagine the following scenario:

A teenage girl is checking her MySpace profile. She notices a new video ad for Old Navy on her page. But this particular ad jumps out at her because she immediately notices that the person in the ad is actually someone from her high school!! Without hesitation, she hits the “play” button and watches her friend talking and dancing, while modeling Old Navy’s new line of Madras casual wear. The ad seems homegrown in some ways, yet professional overall… a feel that was intentionally designed into the creative execution by Old Navy’s ad agency. Excited, she notices that her cousin (who’s attending college) is online so she IMs her to describe the ad she just saw. Her cousin IMs back to say that she saw the exact same Old Navy ad on her own MySpace page earlier, but in her case, the girl in the ad was someone she knew at her college.

Now, let’s step back and digest the implications of what just happened. In a broad sense, this type of program is no different than what advertisers do when they sign-up mega-celebrities (e.g. Catherine Zeta-Jones and Cingular) or superstar athletes (e.g. David Beckham and Motorola) as spokespeople for ad campaigns or for product endorsement deals. When it comes to advertising in mass media, a big name is required since such campaigns are only effective if the viewer already knows who that celebrity is. But in a social network, micro-celebrities who are well known within their network of micro-communities could prove just as effective and potentially even more so, particularly if such campaigns are able to generate buzz, excitement and a cool-factor.

As for MySpace’s role in all this, they are in the unique position to know better than anyone (as the owner of the platform with all the user data) who the “brand-safe” users are within its network.

Thus MySpace can effectively play the role of talent agent by aggregating a list of users who would be appropriate for advertisers within various categories. In fact, the incentive “to be discovered” is likely to spur many users to express themselves in a manner that will position them favorably for consideration. The result is a win for everyone involved.

By enabling advertisers to partner with users, this is the type of program that would create trust between the parties. This trust, multiplied by the number of ad campaigns and the users enlisted, could then be propagated throughout the entire social network in a manner that is completely native to the medium itself. In this vein, it’s worth noting that a campaign like this cannot be implemented efficiently or cost-effectively in any form of mass media.

Remember, social networks are a new medium for self-expression and, unlike traditional media, the content is being produced and owned by the audience itself. This is a new model that requires new rules… and for advertising, the most important rule is to launch programs that integrate users and advertisers, not segregate them. By aligning their interests, trust will be created and social networks will be able to offer advertisers, and users, benefits that are truly unique to the new medium.

So as is the case with money, trust will enable social networks to develop business models with sustainable value.

Robert Young is a serial entrepreneur who played a major role in the invention & commercialization of the world’s first consumer ISP, Internet advertising (pay-per-click ads), free email, and digital media superdistribution.

10:55:32 AM    comment   

No, this isn't just every tier and every movie channel. This is the whole enchilada and the Mexican tango band to go along with it. You get every regular channel, movie channel, pay-per-view event, sporting event, adult channel, HDTV channel, up to 10 DVR receivers and a 24/7 concierge service. Unfortunately this service is only limited to a select few, but that doesn't matter because nobody is going to pay $7,500 a year for this crap. The service will be available next week and the single-button remote is probably not included. – Travis Hudson

Product Page [Via Zatz]

10:50:37 AM    comment   

One of the deep questions I have about life is - how rich do you have to be before you drink something from the hotel mini bar without resenting the price they charge you?

Or maybe I’m just naturally mean, which is why I carry two mobiles these days, as I hate being ripped off for roaming charges. I carry a German mobile and a spare one I use for outbound calls, primarily when I’m in the UK, as I’m flitting back and forth between the two countries pretty regularly. The spare one is not a number I normally give out. Incoming calls are therefore taken on my German mobile.

Of course, it still hurts when someone phones you on the German phone when you’re out and about - for instance, someone in England calls your German mobile when you’re in England (or anywhere else outside Germany for that matter).

Last night, I arrived in Palo Alto (where AdMob is based) and put my German cash card into an ATM and happily got some cash. I switched on my laptop and easily connected to a wireless network. I turned on my German mobile and ….nothing. It just doesn’t work here. Then, I put a newly purchased US Sim card into my spare phone, only to remember I hadn’t got it unlocked. Damn.

So, I now have a situation where I can’t take calls on my German phone all week, as I had to put the Sim card into the German phone. And even if I could, I’d have to keep swapping Sim cards to make calls and then to check if I’d received any. Not exactly a one-world approach.

Incidentally, if anyone can recommend a better way than carrying 3 phones with me - which is what I might have to resort to now - I’d love to hear from you.

Now I need to wrestle with another paradox - shall I have that gin and tonic from the mini bar or not?

9:38:38 AM    comment