Its a competition unlike any other. A competition offered by the Army to use applications developed for cell phones in the combat theatre. Its different another way too — its not limited to the usual bezy of DoD contractors. Anybody can play. –

Cellphone technology is gearing up to go to war. From defense giants like Lockheed Martin, which rolled out a new militarized mobile network this morning, to the start-up tech firm Berico Tailored Systems and even individuals, a diverse range of players is pursuing an equally wide range of approaches.

The most basic approach is that of “Apps for Army” (A4A), a contest held by the Army to develop new military-specific applications for the personal cellphones that many soldiers already have.

But civilian phones rarely work in a war zone: If you think your reception is bad, try getting a signal in rural Afghanistan. Forward bases in devastated countries don’t have access to the billions of dollars in very static infrastructure that civilian mobile devices require, and the Taliban routinely shuts down cell towers with threats and sabotage. Current military network devices require so much power and weight that they are only practical at fixed command posts or on vehicles; soldiers on foot scream into staticky handheld radios the old-fashioned way. So the critical problem in bringing handheld devices to troops in the field is how to get them on the network.

Dare not call is open source, surely the govt would close source any winner for security reasons once selected. So maybe it should be called Open Sourcing? Anyway it is very novel and far from the usual way of gaining DoD business.

Linky.

Many have predicted the demise of Microsoft several times over the decades. The last big assessment being during Netscape’s glory years of the early 90’s and MS’s being caught flat footed by the Internet. But Bill pulled it out. But now? –

Even disregarding Microsoft’s bubble valuation when Mr. Ballmer took over in 2000, the stock has been the proverbial dead money for a decade … At bottom, this is a corporate governance problem. Manifestly, the solution is not to let management keep stepping up to the plate with shareholder money and promising home runs that never materialize…

What the company should … do now is sharply lift its regular dividend and then promise to keep lifting it, so management will have to strain and push to reinvest in its core business while still meeting its dividend commitment to shareholders. Mr. Ballmer or whoever succeeds him needs to be placed under relentless daily pressure to distinguish between necessary spending on the business and pursuit of me-too products that don’t serve shareholder interests.

And…

One big bet Microsoft should make is on open source, the tool of the underdog, a label that is coming to fit the Redmond giant.

Yes, Microsoft is increasingly dabbling in open source, but the company needs to get more than its feet wet. It needs to dive into open source head first.

Open source would pave the way for Microsoft to be more relevant on the web, as Mitch Kapor has argued. If Microsoft wants to compete with Google - and it must - then it’s going to have to significantly sharpen its web arsenal.

Forget loose distribution agreements for Drupal and better interoperability with PHP. Microsoft should consider acquiring Acquia and thereby bringing Drupal (and Acquia) founder Dries Buytaert into the fold. It should be looking for ways to aggressively woo the Linux, Apache, MySQL and Perl/PHP/Python crowd to Windows plus AMP and, frankly, to embrace LAMP developers for everything but Windows.

But let’s not stop there. Microsoft also needs to go deep on Linux. Yes, this is anathema to the Microsoft faithful. But I’m not talking about porting its applications to run on Linux, nor am I suggesting that Microsoft replace Windows with Linux as its desktop and server operating system. That would be madness.

Source

In the former observation, this maybe true under Ballmer. Ballmer is less of a risk taker than Gates ever was. The Internet adaption being a case in point. Bill bet the farm with little realization if the switch would pay off. It did.

But this time around its a little different as the latter quote points out. This time in order to make a switch, Microsoft will be the underdog in any move to intelligent consumer devices. The high ground right now is held by Apple of all people. To get there Microsoft will have to leave Windows in all its flavors behind. That poses a huge undertaking and I doubt Ballmer has the insight to pull it off.

As to a switch to Linux? Heh. We suggested that two years ago. From a technical standpoint it makes sense. Tie in with all the IP work that has been done on the kernel and concentrate your uniqueness in coming up with a X11 based desktop that is for all the world a Microsoft product. The savings would be huge.

But there is a problem. In going there MS would most likely have to cut costs. I mean, anybody with any IT experience will tell their TAM that MSLinux is not worth the current going price if all it is a desktop layer. I can free from 20 other distros. So MS would have to figure out how to survive on 50% of its current income stream while porting all their apps to the platform.

Question is will they, can they?

Tom Silverman is a guy who has been in the music biz longer than I have been in IT. So he knows the trade and its tricks. It is refreshing to hear an insider to state that the current music model is broken —

One of the biggest problems with the old model, which has been going for 50 years, is thinking, “We’re the labels, they’re the artists, and we make money even if they don’t make money. We reduce our risk, they put their blood, sweat and tears into it, and we only give them money when we sign them and when they deliver a new album.”

In between, the only place where they get money is from their booking agent, because they’re touring. They all love their booking agent, because their booking agent gives them a check every month, or every week, and we only give them a check every year and a half when they deliver a new record — and most of that money goes to their lawyer, manager, the taxman, and making the record. Not much of it ever goes in their pocket, and that’s been true for 20 years. Unless they have a five million seller, most of that money goes into that project. Of course they don’t like the labels, because they’re not getting that reinforcement of regular cash flow. They see the labels making money, and them not making money on records.

He also considers the use of the Internet and social networking much a waste of time. Even though in this same article he admits that Susan Boyle broke thorugh on the basis of internet presence. –

No, I think you have to be out there. You have to spread the word to get exposure, but I think the problem is context. When you’re in a glutted environment, you need to differentiate yourself more than ever, so you need a great story. Story is context; it’s not content. The songs on Susan Boyle’s record are forgettable, and her performance is just okay. There are a million singers who can sing that well at least. It’s just the story that sold it. If people could learn from her, regardless of what kind of music they did — “How can I make my story so that when people hear it, they have to spread the word?” That would activate the medium more effectively than trying to get another 50,000 followers on Twitter, which doesn’t seem to do much at all.

Silverman also suggests a different management model. Using LLC’s and Silicon Valley type investment techniques. Oddly we suggested that very thing on this blog well over a year ago. And it is right.

But there are some pieces that Silverman I think is missing –

• The first is good talent is extremely common, and extreme talent is in good supply. Go into any good size church in the USA and there are probably 2 singers in the choir equal to or better than what is screamed out of Hollywood. Is that the case?

  Empirical evidence. Neil Sedaka held a contest with several radio stations as part of a record tour/sale 5-6 years ago. Thousands were screened by the radio stations. Sedaka was floored that several hundred were good enough to be considered by his measure of talent. Anecdotal I know, but good talent recognizes that in others.

  Value in many ways is a perception, especially when the goods are of a nonphysical nature. So when the perceived supply of the goods rises dramatically because consumers perceptions are altered by the sheer volume of good choice the cost curve must drop. Its supply and demand. There is a huge talent supply and only a finite consumer supply.

• The other is this one. Silverman sees it, calls it the ‘clutter the marketplace’. He is of course, right. $3k and you can foam a garage, buy mikes and stands, a 2yo PC and a midi/mixer card and have the equivalent of what a decade ago cost $500k. So anybody can be in it if they want it enough, such is modern technology.

  But again that is not the biggest issue as I see it. Look the big labels are soon to be gone. They are right now where the major studios were back in the 60’s. Then as now, every release had to be a mega blockbuster as that what the audience expected but the costs were beyond belief. The end game will be the same too. Fundamentals now are also different.

  A band, even if it does not break thru to the levels that Silverman expects which is 100k distribution as the floor. Well run the numbers at $10 per disc. $1m gross. Deduct 5% for production costs. (Yes that cheap.) Zero out distribution costs as most bands at this level would sell either direct over the internet or more likely direct at the concerts wher they make most of their money anyway So out of say $900k split 10 ways with band, light, stage men that is still $80-100k. No you won’t get overnight rich at those numbers, but that is a descent upper middle class income with unlimited upside you you do break thru.

To an extent Mr. Silverman’s lament recognized for what it is runs head long into supply chain economics. The Internet has eliminated the middle man in most cases. Producer and retailer become one. No industry is immune from it even music. And for a lack of a better analogy, iTunes IS WalMart in the music industry.

Linky

There a few notes floating around the ‘Net that Google is testing bits and pieces of Google Voice internally. Even rumors that a possible upgrade to GMail may include a Google Voice client popup –

The new feature will allow users to make voice calls over the Internet and it’s likely that it won’t be limited to Gmail. In April, TechCrunch reported that Google “built a Google Voice desktop application to make and receive calls” and that the application is tested internally. Google used technology from Gizmo5, a VoIP service acquired by Google last year.

For now, Google Voice’s integration with Gmail is not publicly available.

A Google Voice VoIP service with land line tie in? The consequences are rather formidable –

• Google probably becomes the instant largest VoIP phone company on the planet. Assuming that they tie this to every GMail account, that is in the cards by default. GMail outclasses Skype by at least an order of 2X.
• The paid for VoIP service collapses? Or the price points become inordinately cheap. Why pay for it if I can get if for free?
• Skype’s propietary signaling format bites them back. What has kept most folks with Skype is market size. If a larger player shows up with open protocols, it makes Skype’s technical decision problematic. That become a huge problem for them as they are now a start up again.
• The Skype-Verizon deal is toast.
• It makes the job of the folks trying to control the Internet that much harder. Hard to enforce net rules is they are precluded 1st Amend. speech provisions, which is what the FCC was supposed to guard in the first place.

As a technology this is not earth shaking, its just VoIP. But if Google follows their usual — free basic, paid premium scenarios — it is a massive realignment of the VoIP space as a business. It would also portend a serious challenge to the big three wireless carriers. A smart upstart could offer a unlimited data plan coupled with Android/GMail/Voice/SMS and blow their competitors voice/data plan pairings out of the water. (Hear me out there T-Mobile??)

This is a dark swan for telecom.

Linky

Update:

You must appreciate the remorse I have when I read this –

When Google acquired Gizmo5, a Skype competitor, in November Google Voice users rejoiced – presumably they’d be getting a much needed soft phone on the desktop for users to make and receive calls through Google Voice.

We confirmed that the application had been rewritten and was being tested internally at Google in April. Some Google employees continue to use the app, we’ve confirmed.

But don’t expect it to launch publicly any time soon, we’ve heard from multiple sources. Why? an internal religious debate about desktop software.

Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin don’t want Google to be in the business of creating software outside of the browser, say our sources. And that’s consistent with Google’s product launches over the last several years.

Of course it ignores the efforts that Google is putting into developing their own Chrome browser, Chrome operating system and Android operating system, as well as a variety of mobile apps – all are software that installs on computers or mobile devices.

But there may be a hard line when it comes to pure desktop apps like Google Voice. So the team has been sent back to the drawing board to try to make a workable soft phone that will work entirely within the browser using HTML 5.

So the upshot is, it ain’t gonna happen this year or next. Damn! Apparently part of a religious war internally. Personally I think this is a bad move on Google’s part. There is only so much you can do with Search. But with telephony, when you can do it big, there are all sorts of avenues where not only is search manifest in telephony use but it provides yet another source of revenue apart from search. Smart companies diversify income streams.

I need a scotch…..

Linky.

Update II :

Ok, so my scorecard was only half right! The upshot is, Google Voice is out of the Labs and into the wild! Wow. Integrated with Google Mail? Nope. I want that, but the fact that I can freely sign up for Google Voice without the invite is a good start.

Will be a busy weekend. Have a few clients that want this integrated into their websites. Loving it. The current release of GV won’t however put Google in the MaBell business however. It depends on an existing phone line to operate. But merely as a call director it has many uses for lots of people.

For Starbucks to open up their WiFi network for free to their customers? Their biggest competitor, Micky D’s, did this about 6 months ago. D’s is not totally open, but if all you want to do is surf, well then it is. But still, ‘Bucks usually moves faster than this —

Starting July 1st, Starbucks will finally begin to offer free and unrestricted Internet access over Wi-Fi in its stores. Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz made this announced at Wired’s Disruptive by Design conference today. With this, Starbucks finally joins the ranks of neighborhood coffee stores all over the world that have long offered free and easy access to Wi-Fi. By Fall 2010, Starbucks also plans to give Internet users in its stores free access to paid sites, including the Wall Street Journal.

Until now, Starbucks customers were restricted to two hours of Wi-Fi access and needed to register for a Starbucks Card in order to access the Internet. Starbucks already offered free Wi-Fi access to AT&T customers.
Free Access to Paid Content

The free access to paid content sites, however, is the big news here. According to Starbucks, this new service, called the “Starbucks Digital Network,” will give users who surf the Internet from U.S. company owned stores access to “various paid sites and services such as wsj.com, exclusive content and previews, free downloads, local community news and activities, on their laptops, tablets or smart phones.” Besides the Wall Street Journal, Starbucks’ partners include Apple’s iTunes, The New York Times, Patch, USA TODAY, Yahoo and ZAGAT.

The free paid access sweeter I guess makes up for the delay?

Linky.

The bugler that is; to play taps over BlockBuster. The former darling of Wall Street is $900m in the hole, savaged by bad management, RedBox, home theater and a bad economy. –

Blockbuster is in discussions with bondholders to get up to $150 million in so-called debtor-in-possession financing, said people familiar with the matter. Such loans, which typically carry high interest rates, are used to help companies operate while under Chapter 11 protection. The senior bondholders, owed about $630 million, would provide the financing to protect their original investment should Blockbuster enter bankruptcy court.

The talks don’t necessarily mean Blockbuster will file for bankruptcy. Blockbuster is pursuing other options, and troubled companies often negotiate bankruptcy loans as a precautionary measure and still reach deals with creditors to restructure debts outside of court.

On a separate front, Blockbuster is talking with possible strategic partners about a new cash infusion, a person familiar with the matter said. Under that scenario, a group of lower-ranking bondholders owed $300 million would likely convert their debt to equity, this person said.

One potential investor could be NCR Corp., which provides the company with Blockbuster Express-branded vending machines, this person said. It remained unclear what other possible investors Blockbuster had sounded out. Blockbuster and NCR declined to comment.The movie-rental chain faces possible bankruptcy as its debt has mounted amid stiff competition.

Moves of a company that is looking for operating capital through the bankruptcy proceedings hoping for a white knight buyout. That will only work if there is a desirable level for a pennies on the dollar deal. The problem for BB is that its floor rent is tied to a cost structure of 2-3 years ago in a commercial real estate market that is selling square footage at 50% discount.

The other problem for BB is that the nature of the competition matrix has not changed and will increase over time. Home theater systems are getting cheaper all the time. RedBox is expanding at a furious pace and will be offering Blu Ray rentals shortly. Even the Pay-per-View market is holding up well as the customer seems satisfied with the pricing. Add it all up and the BB market is not looking good for a B&M model.

Another loser in the Whack-the-MIddleman sweepstakes.

Linky.

As we reported earlier, the government’s attack on a free Internet paused briefly with Congress putting the brakes on the FCC’s power grab. It doesn’t take a genius to see what Congress had in mind. It plans to grant the authority to regulate, and probably tax the internet unto itself.

In fact, a three ring circus to discuss the subject is planned for June with four of the Congress’ biggest clowns presiding.

Senators Jay Rockefeller and John Kerry, and Congressmen Henry Waxman and Rick Boucher say they will soon launch “a process to develop proposals” for revising the 1934 Communications Act, whose archaic framework the FCC wishes to impose on broadband services.

Rockefeller, Kerry, Waxman and Boucher chair the relevant communications, commerce and technology committees in the House and Senate.

According to a statement, “As the first step, [Rockefeller, Kerry, Waxman, Boucher] will invite stakeholders to participate in a series of bipartisan, issue-focused meetings beginning in June.” The release offered few other details on the move, which could prove controversial.  Even Democrats who facially support the FCC’s end-goal of net neutrality adoption were caught off-guard by the commission’s unprecedented move to reclassify. (Big Government)

We need to watch carefully when the show begins. None of these distinguished gentlemen are known for advocating free markets or a free Internet.  Rockefeller and Kerry have been a dedicated and tireless allies of the telcos since the beginning of their careers. “Showboat” Waxman is the master of running long and expensive witch hunts and hearings, always attempting to extend the reach of government. Bouchet was one of the architects of the disastrous 1996 telecom act that claimed to open markets while it actually stifled competition. Hopefully you’ll join me in keeping watch, and advocating for an unregulated, untaxed net, with robust last mile competition.

Theaters and studios are complaining about flat revenues at the box office. –

Movie Tickets Reach the $20 Mark

For the first time, a major Hollywood film will hit the $20 threshold at the box office, as movie-theater owners test the public’s ability to absorb ever higher ticket prices.

Several theaters will charge $20 per adult ticket to IMAX showings of the animated 3-D family film “Shrek Forever After,” the fourth “Shrek” installment from DreamWorks Animation. The theaters include the AMC theater in Manhattan’s Kips Bay neighborhood, AMC Loews 34, AMC Loews Lincoln Square and AMC Empire 42nd Street.

The increases weren’t officially announced, but were reflected in prices posted Wednesday on movie-ticketing Web sites such as Fandango.com and tracked by BTIG LLC media analyst Richard Greenfield.

Source

$20 for a ticket. Are they out of their minds?? I will grant that IMAX if done right is worth a reasonable premium but no $20 worth. I can go down to BestBuy 6 months after the fact and buy that movie in Blu-Ray for $24.99. So I spend a marginal overhead for the film vs a single ticket experience. But I just acquired the right to view the thing as many times as I want.

The Suits wonder why the movie going public does not show up any more. Why should they? The prices are too high. Beside with many going to personalized home theatre the rationale for going to a movie house is gone. Buy the flick, or rent, at view at your schedule. But the math is pretty simple — $80 for a family of 4 vs waiting a little and spending merely a $1 from RedBox. Pretty dang clear to me.

How about you?

Update: It appears that the source article was in error. Or should I say that several AMC theaters were in error in how they reported pricing for Shrek. We pass along this as a corrective action.

With the FCC’s broadband baseline set at a paltry 4MBPS, Europe’s recently announced 30MBPS standard should be sounding alarms.  There’s much more to the story than just the minimum acceptable broadband speed arbitrarily set by bureaucrats. The back story is competition and the role it plays.

European broadband has been lead by healthy competition in the most unlikely of places like France and the UK. That open market that includes last mile line sharing for  competition has raised the standard urban connections to some of the world’s most robust at some of the world’s lowest prices. Competition has forced the old school telcos to upgrade infrastructure and streamline operations. New networks cost considerably less to run. And ….. we hear no whining about the need to recover investment in decades old infrastructure.

With the sea change that has made free and accessible information and media the fuel of economic development critical to economic security, broadband competition should be a top priority. At the risk of bending Third Pipe editorial policy on political posts, I have a question for the Obama administration: While you are so eager to emulate all failed aspects of European socialism, why do you shy away from emulating what the Europeans are doing well?

The grand master plan for European broadband is out, and one target leaves the United States in the digital dust—a goal of 30 Mbps “or above” for all Europeans by 2020. So says the European Commission’s Digital Agenda for Europe, which also wants 50 percent of EU households subscribed to links of 100Mbps or more by that year.

….Needless to say, Europe isn’t jealously comparing itself to the United States, high-speed Internet-wise. Here our supposedly bold and fearless Federal Communications Commission thinks it’s cool by setting a pokey universal broadband goal of 4Mbps, sans fiber, which the agency says costs too much. (ARS Technica)

YouTube, the place where the 10min vid is king. Not much prime time going on there of course. But if you count views, well then program directors at ABC, NBC, CBS better listen up –

America’s Funniest Home Videos may have pioneered the YouTube concept, but as the site reaches the five-year mark, its audience size is no laughing matter. YouTube’s viewership now exceeds that of all three networks combined during their “primetime” evening time slot, with more than 2 billion views per day, Google announced Sunday.

Granted, YouTube’s numbers come from worldwide views, while ABC, CBS and NBC broadcast their primetime channels within the United States. But this is a significant milestone nonetheless, and hints at an eventual tipping point when the internet could become the world’s dominant video-delivery system, Mark Cuban’s predictions aside.

Google also trumpeted some other key stats: People upload over a day’s worth of video to YouTube every minute; the average user spends only 15 minutes a day on the site, which YouTube would like to increase in part by renting full-length films; and YouTube has broadcast live sports to more than 200 countries.

To celebrate its fifth birthday, YouTube asks the site’s users to upload videos of how the site has affected their lives, some of which will appear on a specially curated channel. In addition, celebrities including Conan O’Brien — whose best next career move might be to become official curator of YouTube — marked the occasion by posting a playlist consisting of their favorite videos (view his above).

Should the networks really be worried about being overtaken by YouTube? Yes and no. They own their content, YouTube has professed a wish to lengthen viewing times. Licensing currently-airing full-length network television shows (in addition to the older shows they currently license) would be a great way to do that. And the networks are in a more favorable negotiating position than the record labels were when they made similar deals, due to Hulu (ABC and NBC) and CBS.com already attracting large audiences for that content.

Perhaps a more serious threat to the networks is that YouTube is changing our viewing behavior, and that our viewing habits on the computer will soon migrate to the living room.

That last bit about changing viewing habits has already happened in our household. We have not had cable for almost a year and to tell you the truth, we don’t miss it.

Linky.