I don't know how I feel about carry around a 12" or 13" iPad (a 13" version is widely being reported as something Apple is looking hard at). I suppose I will learn to like it. I'm sure it'll be light enough and capable of doing more in terms of productivity than today's 9.7" iPad or the iPad mini. And if that's the case, I'm probably for it and may even buy one.
Right now, I'm on the 11.6" Macbook Air as I write this post. A 12" or 13" iPad would have a slightly bigger screen, not to mention that it'll probably have a Retina Display that even late-2010 Air and the current models does not support.
I'm talking about this now for a couple of reasons. More at On Apple.
Friday, August 9, 2013
Twitter Starts Own PAC - A Trend That'll Make Silicon Valley More Powerful But Not Better
Source: Mashable.
Twitter has started its own political action committee that will be staffed with lobbyists to do its bidding and try to sweet talk Congress and the Belt Way into see things its way. It's a trend for West Coast tech giants been going on for years now.
Personally, I don't see how they can avoid it given the political climate we're in and the two-party system that we've got.
Political spending from Silicon Valley has increased over the years as Apple, Facebook, and Google as they try to get their agendas heard.
However, I do see this a bit differently than say companies like Wall Street, oil giants, and others in that most of the political dollars being spent are more of a defensive nature than, say, investment banks trying to influence policies to making it easier to line their own pockets or open up more federal land for drilling.
Of course, for social media companies like Facebook and Twitter, they are looking to make sure that they can still make money off their users and that, yes, free speech is definitely important to them, so is making sure privacy policies are not set so stringent that they cannot sell their users ads or services based on what they know about them.
At the time same, I have to wonder about the issues that many of these tech companies on the West Coast will support. Sure, patents, technology, speech, and privacy are going to be major issues for social media companies. West Coast companies are also more liberal and have greater stake in social issues as well.
Apple and Google came out in support of SCOTUS decision on gay marriage but you don't see Exxon or Bank of America caring about that one bit. And it's also tech companies that are building new offices and facilities that rely more on renewable sources of energy than companies from other industries.
Personally, I think lobbyists are just blood suckers but if tech giants can also push through Washington on issues important to the West, it could be a good thing.
Maybe.
Twitter has started its own political action committee that will be staffed with lobbyists to do its bidding and try to sweet talk Congress and the Belt Way into see things its way. It's a trend for West Coast tech giants been going on for years now.
Personally, I don't see how they can avoid it given the political climate we're in and the two-party system that we've got.
Political spending from Silicon Valley has increased over the years as Apple, Facebook, and Google as they try to get their agendas heard.
However, I do see this a bit differently than say companies like Wall Street, oil giants, and others in that most of the political dollars being spent are more of a defensive nature than, say, investment banks trying to influence policies to making it easier to line their own pockets or open up more federal land for drilling.
Of course, for social media companies like Facebook and Twitter, they are looking to make sure that they can still make money off their users and that, yes, free speech is definitely important to them, so is making sure privacy policies are not set so stringent that they cannot sell their users ads or services based on what they know about them.
At the time same, I have to wonder about the issues that many of these tech companies on the West Coast will support. Sure, patents, technology, speech, and privacy are going to be major issues for social media companies. West Coast companies are also more liberal and have greater stake in social issues as well.
Apple and Google came out in support of SCOTUS decision on gay marriage but you don't see Exxon or Bank of America caring about that one bit. And it's also tech companies that are building new offices and facilities that rely more on renewable sources of energy than companies from other industries.
Personally, I think lobbyists are just blood suckers but if tech giants can also push through Washington on issues important to the West, it could be a good thing.
Maybe.
Yellow Journalism: Washington Post Already Sucking Up To Its New Boss (Jeff Bezos)
Source: Washington Post.
Couldn't make this up if I wanted to. In one of the first posts I've seen from the Post since Jeff Bezos bout the iconic print newspaper for $250 million, it's one about Bezos himself. It's five myths about its new boss.
The first one is this: Jeff Bezos is destroying independent booksellers. It makes good start to say that it was Barnes and Noble and Borders that started the trend and Amazon only stepped in later. The segment of the post also regurgitated Amazon's own statements about the Kindle and how its helping the industry.
Except it's also making sure that it can have titles all to itself cutting out booksellers, large and small. Of course, Washington Post didn't quite put it the way I just did.
I'm not an Amazon hater. I get stuff from them (pay the sales taxes), a Kindle user, and also a proud, new, and happy Prime user as well.
Speaking of taxes, the title of the post is "Five myths about Jeff Bezos" and, yet somehow, the post's author find it necessary to include myth number 4: Amazon’s key advantage is that it doesn’t collect state sales taxes.
Of course, Amazon benefited from it. It made sense, even to me, in the beginning of the dotcom era to leave e-commerce be without taxes and such so that it can grow and flourish. And yes, less government and taxes did help but it also helped put Amazon over the top as far as getting buyers to go to Amazon to avoid taxes that they would otherwise have to pay at Walmart, Best Buy, Radio Shack, Target, and you name it.
Well, because most readers aren't going to give too much hoot and dig in a bit, they'll take the "facts" of the post at its face value.
Let's remember who wrote this post. It's "Tricia Duryee is a former staff writer at AllThingsD, where she covered e-commerce, including Amazon". Makes one wonder how much this was a paid post and whether Tricia is gonna be getting a nice promotion soon enough.
Look, I'm not saying anything about Bezos other than that dude's brilliant and has changed the world much in the way other true tech titans have. And I look forward to his space program. Still...
Note: I wonder why this post didn't show up on the New York Times, WSJ, or elsewhere.
Couldn't make this up if I wanted to. In one of the first posts I've seen from the Post since Jeff Bezos bout the iconic print newspaper for $250 million, it's one about Bezos himself. It's five myths about its new boss.
The first one is this: Jeff Bezos is destroying independent booksellers. It makes good start to say that it was Barnes and Noble and Borders that started the trend and Amazon only stepped in later. The segment of the post also regurgitated Amazon's own statements about the Kindle and how its helping the industry.
Except it's also making sure that it can have titles all to itself cutting out booksellers, large and small. Of course, Washington Post didn't quite put it the way I just did.
I'm not an Amazon hater. I get stuff from them (pay the sales taxes), a Kindle user, and also a proud, new, and happy Prime user as well.
Speaking of taxes, the title of the post is "Five myths about Jeff Bezos" and, yet somehow, the post's author find it necessary to include myth number 4: Amazon’s key advantage is that it doesn’t collect state sales taxes.
Of course, Amazon benefited from it. It made sense, even to me, in the beginning of the dotcom era to leave e-commerce be without taxes and such so that it can grow and flourish. And yes, less government and taxes did help but it also helped put Amazon over the top as far as getting buyers to go to Amazon to avoid taxes that they would otherwise have to pay at Walmart, Best Buy, Radio Shack, Target, and you name it.
Well, because most readers aren't going to give too much hoot and dig in a bit, they'll take the "facts" of the post at its face value.
Let's remember who wrote this post. It's "Tricia Duryee is a former staff writer at AllThingsD, where she covered e-commerce, including Amazon". Makes one wonder how much this was a paid post and whether Tricia is gonna be getting a nice promotion soon enough.
Look, I'm not saying anything about Bezos other than that dude's brilliant and has changed the world much in the way other true tech titans have. And I look forward to his space program. Still...
Note: I wonder why this post didn't show up on the New York Times, WSJ, or elsewhere.
Social: CBS' Big Brother Shows Stupid Racist/Homophobic People To Remain Stupid Despite Social Media
Source: CNN.
One thing I like about social media is its ability to allow stupid people show the world in all their glory just how stupid, racist, and bigoted they can be. Evidence is very clear for the show Big Brother on CBS.
Fact is, while there were calls to get rid of two racist participants and, now, someone probably dealt with child pornography, I'm not sure that was the right move.
We know society at large to know the extent of how far we've come as a society and how much more we have to go. Evidently, in such a small confine, racism and deviant behaviors are rampant. It has made me wonder if CBS purposely picked these show participants for ratings, knowing that they were going to generate buzz and outrage.
What social media in the Big Brother has demonstrated is just where the social line is on moral, race, and gender issues when encountered with such blatant demonstrations by the Big Brother participants. So, even while the two women and this guy, who is currently being investigated by authorities, are not currently active on Twitter or Facebook to air their views, the rest of us are ready to do it for them.
Quick searches on Twitter shows just how shock people are.
Thursday, August 8, 2013
Google's Chess Maneuver: Android Conspiracy, Chrome, Moto X, and Passwords
In the mobile as well as the desktop war, there is still a battle that is raging as it has ever been since iOS, Android, Web OS were all fighting it now. Today, Blackberry is down but isn't out while Windows Phone is gaining some traction, Apple and Google and Samsung are still around. Hardly any of them can declare victory and go home.
For Google, while it has a good stronghold in mobile and remains the dominant search engine in traditional computing, more and more, I believe, as Google probably does too, that for it to remain so and potentially strike further blows against its foes, its future lies squarely in the browser and webapps.
Specifically, Chrome OS. There is already evidence that has occurred and we'll see more obvious moves towards that.
Here are a few highlighted events in the last few months that point to this. (more at On Android).
For Google, while it has a good stronghold in mobile and remains the dominant search engine in traditional computing, more and more, I believe, as Google probably does too, that for it to remain so and potentially strike further blows against its foes, its future lies squarely in the browser and webapps.
Specifically, Chrome OS. There is already evidence that has occurred and we'll see more obvious moves towards that.
Here are a few highlighted events in the last few months that point to this. (more at On Android).
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
"Hunger Games" Camp - For Real
I'm not a big Hunger Games fan. I don't get the appeal of kids killing each other for sport. Still, there is a ghoulishness to the whole series and movies. Having said that, there is now a real camp that has kids role-play and try to "kill" each other.
Where else but Florida.
Source: Today.
Where else but Florida.
Source: Today.
Bezos and The Post: Business Opportunity But Also Risky For News
The titans of our day, especially in media, has shown that they cannot help but interfere and interject their views in how their news and media properties, print, broadcast, or online, express their opinions on social and political issues of our day.
Fox News is an example. Whether you agree with how Murdoch's cable news infotainment channel reports on issues and if you're honest with yourself, you know Fox ain't "fair" nor "balanced". Just like MSNBC isn't either.
In case you're not aware, Amazon's Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post for $250 million just a few days ago. It's a grand opportunity for a tech titan whose company, Amazon, has reshaped commerce in a bit way all over the way world.
And while, I have a generally positive view about this, like others, I'm watching to see what Bezos does with the Post and whether editorially, the reporting will skew towards his views on commerce, the government, and even space travel to benefit his other enterprises.
So, we will have to see if Amazon's Jeff Bezos won't interfere with a bad review of an Amazon service or product like the Kindle platform. I mean, seriously, the itch to do that is just too tempting. Or to place an article or two about Amazon's competitors or influence space programs towards his own.
This friendly Wired post seems to suggest that Bezos bought the Post on his own to take pressure off Amazon because, well, right now, stockholders might be okay with a profitless e-commerce company investing in the future but not if it also is saddled with a print media in an industry that is dying a slow painful clueless death.
The Wired post goes on to speculate how Amazon will benefit from the political influence the Post can bring to bear on Washington. While, I'm not sure the opinion of one man or even just one company is a good thing to have so much power, Wired did not seem to mind it at all.
Regardless of why Bezos chose to buy the Post out of his own pocket, how Bezos transformed the entire print media is going to be very exciting to watch. I agree with the Wired post on one point. Bezos did not go blindly into this deal just to influence Washington or public opinion.
He bought Washington Post because he has a plan in place already. We'll just have to see what it is and who benefits the most from it.
Fox News is an example. Whether you agree with how Murdoch's cable news infotainment channel reports on issues and if you're honest with yourself, you know Fox ain't "fair" nor "balanced". Just like MSNBC isn't either.
In case you're not aware, Amazon's Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post for $250 million just a few days ago. It's a grand opportunity for a tech titan whose company, Amazon, has reshaped commerce in a bit way all over the way world.
And while, I have a generally positive view about this, like others, I'm watching to see what Bezos does with the Post and whether editorially, the reporting will skew towards his views on commerce, the government, and even space travel to benefit his other enterprises.
So, we will have to see if Amazon's Jeff Bezos won't interfere with a bad review of an Amazon service or product like the Kindle platform. I mean, seriously, the itch to do that is just too tempting. Or to place an article or two about Amazon's competitors or influence space programs towards his own.
This friendly Wired post seems to suggest that Bezos bought the Post on his own to take pressure off Amazon because, well, right now, stockholders might be okay with a profitless e-commerce company investing in the future but not if it also is saddled with a print media in an industry that is dying a slow painful clueless death.
The Wired post goes on to speculate how Amazon will benefit from the political influence the Post can bring to bear on Washington. While, I'm not sure the opinion of one man or even just one company is a good thing to have so much power, Wired did not seem to mind it at all.
Regardless of why Bezos chose to buy the Post out of his own pocket, how Bezos transformed the entire print media is going to be very exciting to watch. I agree with the Wired post on one point. Bezos did not go blindly into this deal just to influence Washington or public opinion.
He bought Washington Post because he has a plan in place already. We'll just have to see what it is and who benefits the most from it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)