Patents really do need to be shorter perhaps 5 years long.
There is no rationale that justifies the kinds of rates we’re seeing on the asset management side. Fees should be for specific advise to workers and their families. This is why I was happy to work with a fee-only wealth advisor in years past. It’s just a more defensible and ethical way to do business.
You can say that it’s elitist or arrogant to argue that iOS users are better customers than Android users. But you can also say that it’s the truth.
(Via Daring Fireball)
Apple has 2/3rds the share of industry profits while it has garnered only 5% in market share. Why would I want to go after market share in this scenario?
Still, a very cool experiment. And now one I’d love to see applied to some really, really popular celebrities, and some not-quite-yet celebrities. Then we’ll have a better idea of how much indie distribution will actually shift the balance of power in the media industry. It could be a little, it could be a lot, but it’s too early to tell.
The show went on sale at noon on Saturday, December 10th. 12 hours later, we had over 50,000 purchases and had earned $250,000, breaking even on the cost of production and website. As of Today, we’ve sold over 110,000 copies for a total of over $500,000. Minus some money for PayPal charges etc, I have a profit around $200,000 (after taxes $75.58). This is less than I would have been paid by a large company to simply perform the show and let them sell it to you, but they would have charged you about $20 for the video. [emphasis mine] They would have given you an encrypted and regionally restricted video of limited value, and they would have owned your private information for their own use. They would have withheld international availability indefinitely. This way, you only paid $5, you can use the video any way you want, and you can watch it in Dublin, whatever the city is in Belgium, or Dubai. I got paid nice, and I still own the video (as do you). You never have to join anything, and you never have to hear from us again.
(Via The Loop.)
Information on the internet is costly to produce, near costless to distribute, but marketing can be an issue, a costly one at that. Louis CK has an established brand so he can take the risks in production and let the viral nature of the Internet do its thing.
The experiment was successful but it’s not a game changer for Louis CK per se. (If you doubt that, you put out $250,000 for production and see how viral your show goes.) He just cut out a middle man, made more money and we saved some. That’s the game changer for the big distribution, really marketing, companies. Social networking is not good for their business model. Not at all.
Read his whole post. A lot to learn there.
Eliot Spitzer on the aforelinked scandal revealed by Bloomberg:
Imagine you walked into a bank, applied for a personal line of credit, and filled out all the paperwork claiming to have no debts and an income of $200,000 per year. The bank, based on these representations, extended you the line of credit. Then, three years later, after fighting disclosure all the way, you were forced by a court to tell the truth: At the time you made the statements to the bank, you actually were unemployed, you had a $1 million mortgage on your house on which you had failed to make payments for six months, and you hadn’t paid even the minimum on your credit-card bills for three months. Do you think the bank would just say: Never mind, don’t worry about it? Of course not. Whether or not you had paid back the personal line of credit, three FBI agents would be at your door within hours.
Yet this is exactly what the major American banks have done to the public.
Or, as Jon Stewart asked, “How the f*** is it that Martha Stewart went to jail?”
(Via Daring Fireball)
Gruber finds the perfect quote.
Microsoft’s share of U.S. smartphone platforms slipped 1.7%, to 8%, during the three months ended Jan. 31, according to market watcher comScore. Over the same period, Google Android’s share increased 7.7%, to 31.2%, while Apple’s iPhone held steady—increasing .1% to 24.7%.
Ouch. No hardware carrier needs two monkeys on their back. Microsoft’s traditional model has been to charge for their OS and appropriate some value from the OEM. Google’s turns all that on its head. In fact, Google is willing to pay through revenue sharing on search. Microsoft’s rumored “billions” paid to Nokia to implement on Windows Phone is too little, too late. Microsoft can’t pay everybody to implement on their OS.
“Iwata’s comments also sidestepped many of the factors that often force traditional game prices upwards. Nintendo despite its Internet services is dependent on cartridge-based game sales at retail, and its developers have to both account for manufacturing and for the cut demanded by retail stores. Android and iOS developers are only bound by the revenue split with Apple or Google and often have much reduced overhead. A typical 3DS game in the US will cost $40 where most smartphone-class games cost $10 or less, even when they represent direct ports of DSi titles.”
Iwata is near delusional in his comment about producing value. His company monetizes value, specifically the value is in the bundle of the game plus the device that runs it. Apple and Android have simply made it far more difficult for Nintendo to monetize the part of that bundle, i.e. the game, it has in the past. Nintendo was able to lock the game up in a cartridge to control how the end consumer can enjoy the value that Nintendo “creates.” Apple and Android destroyed that by using the Internet as distribution rather than expensive physical cartridges in retail stores. And we’ve seen this movie before with CD’s and now DVD’s. (No wonder Apple is no rush to get into Blu-ray.)
Upton Sinclair said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” But in truth Iwata is paid to understand and it’s sad he doesn’t.
G.M. Prices Its Shares at $33 in Return to Stock Market – NYTimes.com: “Fulfilling an implicit mandate from Treasury, the largest allocation of G.M. shares has been made to institutions representing American retail investors, these people said. The move was meant in part to blunt criticism that taxpayers would be cut off from what company and government officials insist was a potentially big rise in G.M. shares. (Several of the people involved in the offering said they expect to see a potential 10 to 20 percent jump in the share price on Thursday, typical for an initial offering.)”
(Via The Daily Beast.)
If you are going to do this, at least do it right. So far so good.