Archive | internet RSS feed for this section

CES 2012

By on January 15, 2012 in internet, Telecom

What a ridiculous show.

The show is just too big. They say only Vegas can handle a show this big, but it can’t. Vegas has the capacity in conference and hotel space, but once the show expands into multiple locations the weak link becomes apparent: transportation. They were running large buses full time between The Venitian and the convention center (exhibits were at both locations). Still, the bus had 30 minute lines, and it takes the bus about 20 minutes to drive about 3 miles. Don’t even think about taking a taxi – taxi lines were ridiculous at all times of the day for the whole week.

Why is the show so big? The economy is weak, and there were no big announcements or break throughs this year. Apple is already out and Microsoft is making it their last year. In other words, it could have been much bigger. The reason it is so big is because electronics are expanding into every aspect of our lives. You can’t think of consumer electronics as what you might find in a Best Buy, it is much broader. They literally had gadgets for those that are not born yet- and services for after-life (AssetLock, Dead Man’s Switch, Death Switch. and Eternity Message). Products range from gadgets to cars, from mobile phones to massage chairs, from solar panels to toilets to windows. As electronics continue to get cheaper – they will continue to spread – the show will continue to grow unless purposely constrained as I think it should be.   Continue Reading →

Comments { 2 }

Good Bye Best Buy

By on January 11, 2012 in internet

Best Buy has been dead to me for years, and I feel really bad about it.

I bought a new TV on this last Black Friday from Best Buy. It was an exceptional deal. They had advertised it in advance so I had time to plot my strategy. I hit a few other online sites and Costco and none could come close to matching the deal. I went to Best Buy on Wednesday night (before Thanksgiving) to see the unit in question… it wasn’t on display and no one there new anything about it.

Outside the store, people were already lining up to camp-out. The store would be closing soon, and be closed all day on Thanksgiving, opening at Midnight Friday morning. The campers had about 32 hours to go. I didn’t need to camp. The TV I wanted would be available online during Thanksgiving day. No camping, no crowds, and a great deal. I bought the TV in a few clicks, got free delivery, and went back to my feast wondering how Best Buy could stay in business. Continue Reading →

Comments { 8 }

Say Cheese

By on September 7, 2010 in internet

Video systems are hot. Web cams, video phones, telepresence, video surveillance, back-up cams for cars, cam-corders, Flips, camera phones, iPod cams, and others.

I am surprised how much video is working its way into our routines.  I think we are on camera more than we are not.

How many cameras are pointing at you right now?

As I type this post, there are three cameras pointed directly at me (that I know of). My primary computer is a notebook with a built-in webcam. On top of my other monitor is my FreeTalk Skype HD camera. To my left is my Polycom VVX 1500 video phone pointed directly at me. Even though all of these are supposedly off, I prefer to cover them when not in use. Only the Polycom has a lens cap.

Camera’s and speaker-phones being off is something that I some times doubt.

How many video cameras do you own?

In addition to those above, I have several older webcams retired in drawers. I have four digital cameras that can take photos and videos. My older laptop has a web cam. We own a Flip. We have a Sony hard disk Handycam, a few more active USB cameras on other computers. We have four active mobile phones each with a camera, and a few in a pile that aren’t being used any more. I actually have a DVR and several cameras I intend to hang up outside the house, but haven’t done so yet.

How many camera’s are currently on your shopping list?

We plan to buy a new TV – it will likely have a Skype Camera built into it. I intend to get a new mobile phone soon which has one. My kid wants a Touch, which will have two. Probably going to get a new car later this year and it will probably have a reverse camera. There will be at least one tablet purchased in this house which means one or two more depending on the model.

Compare that against some things that may be losing popularity… how many corded home phones do you have? How many televisions? How many pagers?

Cameras are everywhere – and like Tribbles, they are multiplying.

But wait, there is more. Check out these video related stories:

1) The Disney Cruise ship: The Dream

Normally, I would link to an article, but a video just seemed more appropriate for some reason.

http://www.viddler.com/simple_on_site/5122673e

This ship has some remarkable video technology – interactive and enchanted art, video window simulations, and video portholes. The video window is very clever and Disney is using them to make windowless staterooms more attractive. From Wired:

Each stateroom will have a 30″ round HD screen mounted on one wall, feeding live video from a series of cameras mounted around the perimeter of the boat. No matter what direction the Dream is sailing, or what time of day, passengers will see what’s visible outside in the specific direction they are facing in the stateroom, as if they were looking at an actual porthole.

But why settle for a 30” round porthole window? This is about as close as you are likely to get to Star Trek Holodeck. Disney put large fake windows in its windowless bar that can change locations so you don’t need to visit the same bar every night on a multi-night cruise. Again, from Wired:

Skyline Lounge, Image by the Walt Disney Company

The Skyline lounge (for grown-ups only) has it’s own cool piece of technology, not unlike the virtual portholes. It has no actual windows, but has screens where windows would be behind the bar and on the opposite wall. The screens project what the view would be like if you were sitting in a lounge at the top of a skyscraper in one of many cities around the world. The city will change from time to time, and the view will always been time-accurate.

The city view seems a bit odd in the middle of the ocean, but then a midnight view in the middle of the ocean can be pretty boring. I like the notion of video windows and I think it could revolutionize many things beyond cruise ships. What a great idea for offices, homes, or businesses that just don’t have windows or pretty views. The idea of being able to recreate actual lighting and orientation to be the same as outdoors is brilliant. Disney says there is more interest in their windowless rooms than real windows…. real windows don’t have Disney characters and can be really dull in heavy fog.

 

2) Burger King

In an effort to prove that its burgers are made to order, BK Brazil experimented with putting a snapshot of the person ordering on its burger’s wrapper. This is a concept taken one step further than McDonalds which takes order photos without revealing it. In The World is Flat, Friedman explains how some McDonalds drive thru’s are hosted by a call center in Colorado Springs, and not by someone inside the restaurant. It turns out hiring people that can understand orders and speak clearly is hard to do. A call center can be do it more effectively and efficiently, and to minimize the risk of mismatching orders and customers – a hidden cam takes a photo of the person ordering. That photo is displayed to the person that hands out the food as a simple quality check.

Burger King cleverly puts the photo on the wrapper, so it is clear the Whopper was made to order (the campaign was called Whopper Face). It really is very clever, but unlikely to see the light a of a shutter in the US.

“;” alt=”">

 

The video shows all the potential fun and laughs, but it isn’t that simple. One problem is the person that orders isn’t always the person that eats it – and no one wants to eat a burger with someone else’s photo. Photogenic folks probably love it – but the loyal Burger King customer probably isn’t that photogenic. Do they really want to remind the customer of their looks before serving them a Triple Whopper with 76 grams of fat and 51 grams of carbohydrates?

3) Augmented Reality

On area where video is just getting interesting is in the world of augmented reality. This space is booming with incredible innovation that will change the way we do things. Going back to the fake windows above, it can’t be much longer for fake windows to replace real windows in critical locations… say cars. An AR windshield, with navigation, dashboard controls, and other relevant information could make clear glass windshields down-right primitive. For some interesting examples in AR, click here.

4) Video Not to Watch

Video doesn’t have to be seen to be useful. At the last VoiceCon show, NEC displayed some very interesting video technology in their booth. The display was for entertainment purposes, nothing to do with its enterprise voice solutions. Their camera, combined with some very sophisticated face detection software determined each guest’s age, gender, and race. With shocking accuracy. This reporting makes watching the video pretty useless. It has lots of potential applications – say a new display ad at the airport – a hidden camera like this could provide the advertiser with detailed demographics about who stops to read the ad. A camera connected to a cash register could provide detailed spending demographics at a popular retail location. This type of research used to require some sap to watch these videos… not anymore. In fact, the notion of sampling could go away – just record everything.

So what?

Well, normally this blog talks about voice technologies – and my point here is that the voice conversation is increasingly shifting to video. Video phones, video chats, video bridges, and video collaboration. Not so long ago, video seemed pretty sci-fi – and that’s my point. Video is here. Video is everywhere and there is a good chance there is a video cam pointed at you right now.

Putting a strategy around video communications isn’t something that voice traditionalists can ignore any further. It is no longer a future thing. It is here. Apple’s FaceTime, Skype’s video bridge (10 way!), Google’s video coder… all geared at consumers are here today. These devices are not just for pictures either… bar code scanners, motion detection, much more. I find it shocking, but video is actually moving mainstream faster than I ever anticipated. For as long as I can remember, video was a curiosity for the rich – oh the good ol days. I remember when cell phones were a curiosity for the rich too (late 80s).

Comments { 1 }

Priority Inbox – SPAM in Reverse

By on September 3, 2010 in internet

The concept of Google’s newest email feature – Priority Inbox is fairly simple, but I have my doubts about its usefulness. If you are not familiar with the feature, take a look at this simple video.

“;” alt=”">

 

It is a SPAM filter in reverse. Google does a very good job of identifying SPAM. Not only does it keep most SPAM out of my inbox, but it doesn’t put very many “false positives” in my SPAM folder. In fact, when someone tells me a message got accidentally caught in the SPAM filter, I am certain they are not using Gmail or Google Apps. But finding things that are not important is very different than finding things that are important. Can Google do it?

It is logical to assume that since Google has the right tools to identify SPAM, they can identify important stuff. But they really are not the same tools. To the right is a short Google video on how it catches SPAM.

“;” alt=”">

 

The video doesn’t provide much detail, but does mention three tricks of the trade; the “Report SPAM” button, rigorous checks, and OCR.

The Report SPAM button is brilliant as it leverages a capability most SPAM filters don’t have – a networked group of users. By hitting this button, you are telling Google that a human is verifying it is SPAM. It would not be in the inbox to begin with if the automated systems had caught it. If enough people agree with you on this SPAM finding, Google will look for near identical email’s and SPAMify them. I assume the number of votes required depends on how fishy the automated systems measure the message.

The rigorous checks part of the video was a bit high level for me, but again, the goal is finding SPAM – not authentic email. There are certain things they can do like check the domain name against the actual mail source – or the DIsplay name against the Reply to. They can scan for known culprit addresses, names, or content. Most SPAM filters apply these measures.

The OCR means that Google can read the text in images. This was an early way SPAMMERS got by keyword filters and a problem for many systems as OCR software may not be installed on a desktop client or Server. Google scans the messages on their servers, a nice benefit. But they are scanning for known keywords often linked to SPAM.

None of these tools can work with finding important email. The network effect won’t help as what designates importance won’t likely be consistent among users. That’s why there is no “Report Priority” button in Gmail. Keywords are not likely to work for filtering either. Lots of things are important to me – it would be impossible to build a list. A fairly simple task for SPAM as most SPAM falls into a handful of categories.

I get my voice mails in my email too. Will Google look at the callerID in the message or perhaps even play the .WAV file and look for keywords in a transcription?

The idea of the SPAM filter is out of sight and of mind. But Priority Inbox isn’t intended to work that way. The theory is you have so much mail, that you want to peruse the important stuff first, and then sort through the rest. I can see that. I don’t think I get enough email to realize its full value, at least not daily. Might be really nice after a few days away from the computer. But when I read an article like this one from TechCrunch by MG Siegler, I get worried: “I’m so addicted, that the few times I’ve accidentally clicked on the old “regular” Inbox view in the past week have really annoyed me. So much so that I actually moved that view into my “more” drop down”. I’ve never sent MG Siegler a note before, but I have little reason to believe that if I do, he will ever see it. The very notion of checking his regular inbox is so upsetting that he had to hide the option. That spells trouble to me.

That leaves “rigorous checks”, but new kinds. Now they need to check new things like if it is someone I normally converse with. But the fact is, I get lots of important emails from folks I don’t normally converse with. “Hi Dave, we haven’t met, but I want to hire you on a project”. I love those emails. I am trying out the new Gmail Priority Inbox feature, but so far I am not that impressed. But they say it gets smarter as you teach it.

I am teaching it, but I don’t see a pattern emerging. I went though some of my mail searching for a pattern, and I don’t see a way to reliably identify important messages. Sure there are some folks I regularly respond to – but if it is based simply on sender that’s an easy filter to set up. In fact, I do have a filter set up to identify one person’s messages.

Recently, I had a legitimate email caught in a colleague’s SPAM filter because I used some profanity in the message and the word “anal”. I find myself avoiding such words now to avoid having my messages quarantined. Will people start using specific words to ensure messages get promoted to the priority box – and if so, what are those words? I guess they may be different for every person, but it might be fun to try guessing. And will those words be the same words on the SPAM filters? “Hi, I want to give you money and a new watch along with so much pleasure that you will lose weight” – SPAM or priority?

I wonder if people in the porn industry can even use SPAM filters – maybe they use the SPAM box as their inbox?

Bottom line, automated filters rarely are successful. Especially new ones. The Google SPAM filter is the best I’ve encountered and maybe Google can figure out how to reverse it – more power to them. For people that receive more than a couple hundred messages a day, it is probably a very worthwhile tool. But I don’t see how it can be reliable enough to ignore the other inbox.

Comments { 1 }

FCC is All Talk

By on August 3, 2009 in internet

The Apple Appstore is a flawed, yet brilliant model. I’ve never liked it. I’ve complained about the censorship it represents in several posts, but theiPhonefan base considered the trade-off – some censorship for excellent and easy apps, to be acceptable. The Appstore was brilliant because it put Apple in charge of their device, the AT&T; network (and other carriers worldwide), creates a revenue stream, and decreases churn.

The only way around the Appstore is to “jailbreak” the phone, which Apple reported last week as a “potentially catastrophic” threat to the nation’s cell towers.

When news broke about the Google Voice controversy, I blogged that day suggesting this is something different. Apple was censoring apps and developers daily with little explanation, but those apps didn’t have followers or a voice.

But this stunt with Google put the issue of the Appstore front and center. The telecom crowd I follow on Twitter is crying foul to Apple (for the first time). AT&T;, the convenient scapegoat for alliPhonematters, is somehow taking or getting the blame. But it was Apple that censored the apps.

The previously mentioned posting was titled Halo Wars, referring to the fact that both Google and Apple are largely considered the angels of telecom/IT. Apple for their innovative design and Google for their high quality free services. Apple hasn’t picked many fights with popular foes like Google, partly because there are very few companies with so much cache (and cash). In Seinfeld speak, Apple typically “has hand”, and in this case is “going to need it.”

There has indeed been an extraordinary amount of conversation about this event. Was Apple wrong? Was it AT&T;? Is Google Voice competitive to Apple? But when I refer to this conversation, it isn’t from Apple, AT&T;, or Google. They are pretty quiet.

It is like a craps game with a quiet roller and a quiet dealer – and a loud crowd. A loud crowd cheering and jeering at every event despite the fact these “events” have no significance.

The latest bit of rants comes from the decision of the FCC to investigate the issue. That is some powerful imagery isn’t it? I think of a yellow taped-off crime scene in front of Apple’s Cupertino headquarters. Fifty or so FCC agents running around the scene – all wearing navy windbreakers with huge white letters identifying them as “FCC.”

Great drama – could be a new Law and Order spin-off. Except for…

Not only is Apple well within their rights to censor any program they don’t like; but the FCC has abdicated their authority over it. In fact, it might be a stronger argument had the FTC showed up instead.

Consider:

  • Apple has never been secretive about their ability (or self appointed responsibility) to censor apps via the Appstore.
  • Apple censors apps quite regularly (daily?).
  • Apple is not a monopoly, but even if they were (though they are a smartphone market share leader) it would not be the FCC to investigate unfair practices. This would be the FTC or the Department of Justice’s Antitrust division.
  • Lots of Telephony related apps have been blocked by Apple – mostly on the grounds they utilize the IP network instead of the voice network for voice. That is what the FCC should be investigating.

The FCC is chartered with managing our wireless spectrum. They are using “pending FCC proceedings regarding wireless open access (RM-11361) and handset exclusivity (RM-11497)” as grounds for investigation.

I think it is great the FCC is investigating.

They may conclude America is better off with open access. Open access would allow applications like Skype or VoIP softphones to operate over the data portion (rather than wifi) of the cell phone. So far, the FCC has taken the stance that closed access is just fine. They may also conclude that handset exclusivity ultimately increases prices and hurts competition. But they haven’t found that to be the case yet either.

What they will find is Apple blocked Google because they don’t like Google or their Google Voice application. They will find that they have the precedent and support to do so, and that it can’t be anti competitive since customers agree to this in a clearly written two year agreement.

The only outcome that could come out of this investigation is the policies or rules should (or should not) be changed. It is highly unlikely that Apple or AT&T; will be found guilty of any crime or be forced (other than for public relations reasons) to change their position.

The Wall Street Journal reported this:

In a statement Friday, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said the FCC “has a mission to foster a competitive wireless marketplace, protect and empower consumers, and promote innovation and investment.” The inquiry letters “reflect the Commission’s proactive approach to getting the facts and data necessary to make the best policy decisions.”

Foster a competitive marketplace? Why don’t wireless carriers let me choose my long distance provider (international rates)? Why do all the carriers use different technologies? this whole “Take Back the Beep” campaign is a long overdue (20 years) lack of protection for the wireless consumer. They choose to investigate this?

But the best part is the “proactive approach” that Genachowski mentions. I might point out that Apple has been rejecting apps without detailed explanation all year. I might also mention that Google submitted their apps to the Appstore 6 weeks prior to rejection, and that the rejection occurred before the FCC investigation. I wonder what a reactive FCC investigation would look like.

This will play out one of two ways. Apple will either stick to their guns assuming that the vast majority ofiPhoneowners don’t know or care. Or, public pressure will change this one particular decision. I don’t have sufficient data to predict the outcome. Apple would love option one, but I don’t know how many of their customers actually care.

Which brings me to my final point. Apple and Google are competitors. Yes, I know this may catch some of you off guard. Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, sat on the Apple Board (until today). But just last May, Eric was asked why he didn’t resign since they are competitors and he replied:

The possibility “hasn’t crossed my mind,” Schmidt told reporters before the annual shareholders meeting at the company’s Mountain View headquarters. “I don’t think Apple sees Google as a primary competitor,” he said.

Well, maybe not a “primary” competitor since Google doesn’t make hardware. But Google does make a browser, a cell phone platform, and an OS – direct alternatives to those made by Apple. So at least this controversy is clarifying some obvious things prompting Eric to resign.

I will just make one other minor point. Google Voice is currently a footnote in the Appendix of Google’s operating plan. This is an interesting topic and whatever Apple decides to do regarding Google Voice Apps in the Appstore will soon be completely forgotten – likely long before the FCC concludes their investigation.

Comments { 0 }

Will Amazon Inherit the World?

By on April 14, 2009 in internet

I recently blogged that the Internet, or more broadly the technology revolution that is changing the way we live and work, is likely contributing to our recession. You can read that post here: Is the Internet to Blame for the Recession?

Today, I saw Amazon: Now One Third of all US E-Commerce.

Amazon.com
(AMZN) could be responsible for close to a third of all U.S. e-commerce transactions, RBC Capital analyst Stephen Ju asserted in a research note this morning. Ju notes that Amazon’s reported revenues consist of a mix of gross revenues from its own businesses plus net third-party commissions. To date, he notes, Amazon has not given a break down of the two numbers, other than as a percentage of units shipped. The question, he says, is how much third-party gross merchandise value is flowing through Amazon’s platform – and what slice of all e-commerce Amazon is actually facilitating.

Performing a “gross-up” analysis, he concludes that “AMZN may be facilitating close to a third of all e-commerce in the U.S.,” and that it continues to gain share here. He also sees opportunity for further gains in international online retailing.

Actually, Ju’s data suggests the total slice of U.S. e-commerce through Amazon was about 34% in Q4, up from 27% a year earlier.

Ju this morning repeated his Outperform rating on the stock, and upped his price target to $84, from $72. He also upped his 2009 EPS estimate to $2.13, from $1.99.

In early trading, AMZN is down 82 cents, at $78.12.

I honestly don’t understand how retailers will continue to survive, outside clothing and food. Yes, there is always those that need to see things before they buy things; but many of these folks see locally and then buy online. The remaining folks that do buy in the stores are diminishing. The compromise required on price, selection, and opening hours is becoming too great. The online customer service experience is also increasingly hard to beat. I shared before that my wife bought shoes for the kids at Zappos- while at the local shoe store out of stock of the desired size. She scanned the barcode in the store on her phone and ordered online for the same price (actually cheaper since it was tax free and free shipping). That was at least 6 months ago, and we haven’t been back to the store since.

Nor is this iShift limited to retail. In my post, I wrote about the impact the DVR is having on television, but I later read a far more in-depth article in the Atlantic Journal on the same subject. In The Future is Cheese, the article suggests that prime time television may end up being targeted for “saps and morons” with low cost reality shows for those who can’t figure how to work a DVR. The cost of scripted shows, such as Heroes, may go the way of the dodo as the networks fill their time with low cost or sponsored programming. The economics and risks associated with scripted shows are relatively becoming too risky.

Since we now digitize just about everything –photos, books, movies, news, etc. the established models are crumbling. I am not sure we thought this one through – as our cherished publishers and content creators go out of business along with our retailers. But at least we will have lots of prime space available for businesses immune to the Internet – barbershops, bakeries, and shipping stores.

 

Comments { 0 }

Is the Internet to Blame for the Recession?

By on April 4, 2009 in internet

The current economic situation is grim. It is already frequently compared to the Great Depression and no one knows how far we are into it. I did a report on the Great Depression back in high school and couldn’t fathom the pictures I saw. I remember a photo of people in line for a job during the construction of the Golden Gate Bridge apparently waiting for someone to fall off. I remember the photos of the breadlines and the abandoned store fronts. I’ve always been a Groucho fan, and read that despite all of his wealth, he never got over living through the recession.

About two years ago, a major snow storm hit Denver. So major, they closed the airport for four days. During that period, the store shelves dried up. Without an airport, fresh foods were stopped, and of course the snow had an impact on Interstate trucking blocking the non-perishables. The empty shelves in the grocery stores reminded me those photos and showed exactly how fragile our supply lines are. Our economy is highly interconnected- commerce is dependent on many interconnected factors and a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

The current economic slow-down is largely blamed on the sub-prime housing crises; no doubt a major factor and a clear scapegoat. But I feel somewhat responsible for it too. Well, not completely personally responsible, but as an early adopter of Internet technologies, I feel partially responsible. The Internet and computing capabilities over the past decade have created havoc on our economy. I am not apologizing, nor do I think the Internet and the world’s attraction to digitization of everything is a bad thing – but we have to accept some responsibility for the mess its created. By the way, I say “we” as I am posting this on a blog, so presumably you are reading it there – we are part of the problem.

 

Retail: The malls around my home are overcrowded with “for lease” signs. I know this because I went to the mall last month for the first time in years. Over the past decade, my online shopping has increased to nearly 100% on non-food items. In the past year, my online purchases have included major home appliances, furniture, windshield wipers, skis, a trampoline, televisions, and even exterior stone siding. The system encourages it with tax incentives. The stores encourage it with their selection and hours, and Amazon has addressed shipping time and costs with their Prime program. The Internet has made things very difficult for retail – which relies on significant markup to pay for their staff and location. The Internet makes traditional retail totally obsolete – I want selection, price, and detailed information which simply isn’t available at a Linens and Things, Circuit City, or CompUSA.

Music: I don’t know the last time I purchased a new audio CD. I buy them used every once in a while on ebay. Instead I get great music from other sources – including Archive.org and Pandora.com. I’ve digitized all my CDs. I am sorry the Artists (and recording companies) are no longer making money from CDs. Kids allegedly illegally download and/or share music – which isn’t nice – but kids do things like that. I swapped cassette tapes when I was a kid. My radio station used to play seven complete albums every Sunday, they called it “The Seventh Day” and it built up my library. I had to monitor it live and flip the tape at the halfway point and quickly rewind it to the start before the first song on side two started. It was tricky and some of my friends thought it wasn’t worth the effort. But it was legal. Unfortunately, it is very easy to duplicate CDs with no quality loss. Despite that is illegal it is reportedly a major problem. I love good music, I am sorry that the model broke.

Publishing: We spend most of our weekends away, so I cancelled our newspaper subscriptions years ago. I don’t like them piled up on the driveway. I get a few magazines, but only because of airline miles. The fact is I get most of my news (newspaper and magazine type) online. I get some 200 articles per day in Google Reader. I keep getting some professional magazines, but I want them to stop. Information Week keeps calling me asking me to renew, but I keep saying no. The issue that just arrived has a paper cover saying “This May Be Your Last Issue If You Don’t Renew”. I wish it would’ve said “It Will Be…”, but it will keep coming. I am very concerned about the loss of newspapers nationally. Professional journalism fills an important role in our society – I don’t think a blogger like myself will crack stories like Watergate. But I also don’t feel any nostalgia toward the awkward sized newspapers or blind shotgun advertising. I’ve done worse than cancel my subscriptions, I’ve even placed ads on Craigslist. I can’t say for sure, but the last classified ad I remember was about 8 years ago.

Books are trickier. These I actually prefer non digitized (though the Kindle is intriguing).But the Internet shows no mercy on paper based media either. Buying used books were such a hassle pre Internet. But now buying a used book online is as simple as buying a new book – only cheaper. I don’t like tattered books, but a book rated “like new” for half the price from a reliable (rated) dealer isn’t a bad proposition. Of course neither the publisher nor the author receive any funds from this more efficient model. I used to enjoy browsing bookstores, but not any more. I don’t like being limited to their selection, and I enjoy reading reviews and posts by common folk.

There are lots of examples of how we use the desktop instead of published materials. I don’t know why they keep giving me the Yellow Pages, I can’t seem to opt out. I also don’t have an encyclopedia in the house anymore; we had two sets where I grew up. We don’t have a reasonably current dictionary either – I just hit Webster.com when I need one. Maps? Mapquest or Google Earth depending on what I need.

Movies: Everyone loves a good movie, but the fact is we don’t really like to pay for them anymore. Personally, I prefer the comfort and quality of movies at home better than the uncomfortable chair in front of the jabbering patron. I enjoy a bowl of popcorn, but I don’t think it is worth $10 no matter how much fake butter is on it. It means I generally have to wait 3-6 months to see the movies, but that isn’t a problem since I’ve eliminated most advertising in my life – I don’t know what I am missing. It isn’t just Hollywood feeling the pinch – think of the Blockbusters too – with their stock now hovering less than a late fee. In Boulder, there is only one movie theater left – when I moved here there were four. The Hollywood elite (Tom Hanks, Jim Carey, Renee Zellweger, etc.) are all turning to children/family movies because they at least result in DVD sales. Teens and adults don’t go to the movies like they used to – too many distractions – Internet usually blamed.

Then there is the whole thing about Bit Torrent and other technologies regarding movie piracy. Apparently it is quite easy to either download HD quality movies or copy a DVD rental to an iPod. Forget illegal camcorder copies filmed in theaters. The fact is the home technology and experience are becoming pretty good or even better than theaters. Not nearly as profitable as individual ticket sales though. Plus factor in real international competition from India and others – and Hollywood has a problem. What film won Best Picture this year? Oh yeah, Slumdog Millionaire from Celador Films.

Television: Television isn’t as impacted as the above categories, but it can’t last much longer. The problem is the revenue or advertising model is obsolete. The primary reason people prefer DVRs is so they can skip the commercials. I rarely watch anything live anymore and don’t know many who do. GE successfully shut down one DVR maker that automatically skipped the commercials, so we all endure skipping manually (for now). Shows like American Idol provide incentive to watch it live, but most shows it really doesn’t matter. I don’t even know when my favorite shows are on anymore – I just wait for them to show up on the recorded list. As DVRs increase in popularity, the secret is going to get out and the revenue model will fall apart. The channels already know it, the run adverts for their own shows increasingly along the bottom of the running show instead of waiting for commercial breaks.

Photos: I’ve got plastic bins in the closet filled with yellow envelopes of old photo finishing. Newer photos are on CDs. Other than the subject matter of the photo, there is nothing local about modern photography. We used to take the roll to the drug store and they sent it off to a lab. If that was too slow, we went to the more expensive 1 hour shop in the mall. All are gone. Now, I upload the photos I want printed to a distant .com and they arrive in the mail a week later. The Asian camera I bought was also purchased online. I will miss the local camera stores. I’ve got a $100 gift card at the local store that I’ve had for a year now, I feel guilty using it – haven’t I done enough?

Telecom: A subject close to my heart. I cut out Qwest from my life years ago. I’ve tried various Internet solutions; cable, DSL, wireless – it doesn’t really matter. The kids don’t understand the land line concept at all. My European wife calls home for less than two cents a minute – That is $1.20 per hour! Of course, that is if we use phone lines. Skype is completely free when they are both online. We also have multiple methods of free domestic long distance – but it is hard to care at rates so low.

Expectation of Free: I like free stuff. I use Gmail for free – it includes excellent virus and spam protection, search, and nice sorting features. I also use Skype, another great service for free. I enjoy blogging with Blogger, sharing photos, getting news and weather, and now even Office type software. I don’t know which is more astonishing the fact all these great services are free, or that we expect them to be free.

It would not be fair in a post like this not to point out that the Internet has created lots of jobs, opportunities, and enormous wealth. The Internet has been a very positive thing to most of us. But based on my personal usage and observations, I can’t help but feel that many aspects of this recession are related to the disruption of the business models our economy depends on. It will take some time for things to normalize and new revenue models to create and be understood. In the late 90s, it was computer dealers and travel agents under attack, but now its impact is far more widespread and profound. This recession is going to take down a lot of companies. The Rocky Mountain Newspaper in Denver went under last month and was 150 years old – nearly as old as the State of Colorado itself. If only that were the only casualty.

It is no fun blaming the Internet for this recession. Mortgage brokers and bankers are such easier targets. But the fact is, we live in a very disruptive time and as we enjoy the positive disruption, we have to accept the negative disruptive aspects.

Comments { 2 }