How did you spend your Thanksgiving?
I cooked a traditional Thanksgiving dinner. It was vegetarian except for the obligatory turkey (free range) for the carnivores in the house and almost completely from scratch (Crescent Rolls were requested and I had to buy a frozen pie shell after messing up the pie crust I was making). If you're interested, I put the links on my Diigo page under a Thanksgiving tag. After that, I cleaned up and watched The Muppet Christmas Carol.
On the other hand, a friend of mine helped feed over 1000 people a free Thanksgiving dinner and, rather than spending the night at home relaxing with her family, she had to go to work for one of the midnight Black Friday openings.
I've always tried to avoid Black Friday simply out of pragmatism. In a nutshell, the really good sales are usually reserved for the people who are willing to camp out in front of a store at 3 AM and fight for their place in line when the doors open. I don't want to go through that and most of the sales that still there at more reasonable hours aren't worth fighting through the crowds. In recent years, it's started to make me angry.
I had hoped that after the Wal-mart employee was trampled to death in 2008, people would wake up and realize that no, it doesn't matter how much you save, it's not worth it. Unfortunately, nothing changed, even though injuries and crazed crowds are hardly uncommon on Black Friday.
Instead, it's getting worse. Not only are the deals being hyped more, but the stores are opening earlier and earlier. Here's a list of Black Friday opening times and a lot of the stores are opening by midnight. Pretty much all of them are open by 6AM and, in case that wasn't bad enough, Toys R Us is even opening at 9PM.
The unbridled consumerism would be bad enough (watch a few of the videos of Black Friday shoppers fighting for sales and tell me you aren't disturbed), but it's becoming more and more clear that the employees aren't happy with having to destroy their Thanksgiving plans to facilitate more extreme Black Friday hours. The Target petition should be proof of that.
Here's the thing: If retailers make working extra hours on Black Friday voluntary (and hopefully give the employees who have to fight those crowds a little extra for doing so), then I'm okay with it. It's becoming more and more apparent, though, that at least some of the employees don't want to be there and are only showing up because their job is at stake.
I like my days off. I like spending Thanksgiving eating way to much food, doing a little Christmas decorating, watching television, eating more food, and waking up the next day at a reasonable time. I especially like not having to risk my safety on Black Friday because people really, really want that super laptop deal. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most people probably feel the same way, even the people who are currently working in stores that opened two or more hours ago.
Because of that, I can't in good conscience support retailers on Black Friday. Or the Thursday formerly known as Thanksgiving and soon to be known as "Black Thursday." And until retailers stop promoting sales and events that are designed to produce a consumer feeding frenzy and start giving their employees a say in whether they give up their Thanksgiving, then I don't plan to spend a penny on Black Friday.
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
On Price Raises and Stupid Names
I really, really like blogs and Twitter feeds. At one point, I had so many blogs on my Google Reader that I was sometimes getting a thousand new items a day. I called a lot of them and I'm gradually adding them back, making cuts as needed to keep things manageable. Today, I only had 76 new items.
Since I usually subscribe to multiple blogs in each of my areas of interest, I frequently see that same story posted multiple times. That makes sense and it's fine, although it sometimes gets annoying when an items that is news (like Verizon getting iPhones) merits a post in nearly every blog I read, especially over multiple posts on the same blog over several days and even moreso when an item is not only big news in a certain field, but gets mainstream news coverage as well.
Enter Netflix.
As most people know, Netflix announced in July that it would be separating DVD rent and streaming and would start charging $7.99 each. Previously, one-DVD-out with streaming was $9.99 (raised from $8.99 in November 2010) and streaming only was $7.99. What this meant for customers that wanted both streaming and DVDs was that they would go from paying $9.99 to $15.99. That meant a 60% price increase.
Predictably, a lot of customers cried foul. I use Netflix primarily for streaming, so I had only taken advantage of the DVD service a few times. I decided to switch to streaming only, which meant that I'll actually save a dollar due to the price changes, since it's forcing me to make an active choice and not pay an extra $12 per year for DVD insurance. ("Oh, I never get DVDs, but what if I really want to watch something that isn't streaming?") However, while a Netflix price increase made sense, anyone should have been able to predict that such a drastic increase would upset customers. I don't understand why they didn't raise it gradually over a longer period of time. Or offer a bundled rate with at least some discount for getting both.
Because this, customers were outraged, subscriptions were canceled, and blogs were flooded with commentary. Fortunately, a few amusing things came out of it, like First World Problem of the Day with Jason Alexander.
September finally rolled around, prices increased, and somehow the world didn't end. Instead of breathing a sigh of relief, Netflix's CEO decided to capitalize on the dearth of satisfied customers by making a blog post and a video that not only offered a non-apology apology, but also announced that the DVD rental side of Netflix would become Qwikster, which feature a separate website (including separate queues), separate credit card billing, but would keep the red envelope...which I'm pretty sure no one cared about at all.
Once again, there was plenty of snark regarding the decision, such as Landline's great parody video of Blockbuster's decision to split popcorn sales and DVD rentals and this comic by Brad Colbow.
Unfortunately, there's been a lot of serious coverage, too. Basically, a company that was pretty good made a really poor decision on pricing, then decided to make an even worse decision about splitting operations and using a really bad name. Oh, and did I mention that they don't even have the @Qwikster Twitter account? Turns out that theirlack appreciation of creative spelling is shared by someone with a penchant for a pot smoking Elmo. (He's since changed his Twitter picture at least.)
To make a long story short, I'm just at a loss as to why so many people are taking this seriously. I understand being annoyed at the sudden and drastic price increase, but at this point, it's stopped being annoying or even mildly frustrating and started being downright hysterical. And really, given all the problems today, don't we all need to embrace humor wherever we find it? Even if it's just the schadenfreude of knowing that the leaders of a major company are capable of levels stupidity that most of us couldn't approach if we tried.
Since I usually subscribe to multiple blogs in each of my areas of interest, I frequently see that same story posted multiple times. That makes sense and it's fine, although it sometimes gets annoying when an items that is news (like Verizon getting iPhones) merits a post in nearly every blog I read, especially over multiple posts on the same blog over several days and even moreso when an item is not only big news in a certain field, but gets mainstream news coverage as well.
Enter Netflix.
As most people know, Netflix announced in July that it would be separating DVD rent and streaming and would start charging $7.99 each. Previously, one-DVD-out with streaming was $9.99 (raised from $8.99 in November 2010) and streaming only was $7.99. What this meant for customers that wanted both streaming and DVDs was that they would go from paying $9.99 to $15.99. That meant a 60% price increase.
Predictably, a lot of customers cried foul. I use Netflix primarily for streaming, so I had only taken advantage of the DVD service a few times. I decided to switch to streaming only, which meant that I'll actually save a dollar due to the price changes, since it's forcing me to make an active choice and not pay an extra $12 per year for DVD insurance. ("Oh, I never get DVDs, but what if I really want to watch something that isn't streaming?") However, while a Netflix price increase made sense, anyone should have been able to predict that such a drastic increase would upset customers. I don't understand why they didn't raise it gradually over a longer period of time. Or offer a bundled rate with at least some discount for getting both.
Because this, customers were outraged, subscriptions were canceled, and blogs were flooded with commentary. Fortunately, a few amusing things came out of it, like First World Problem of the Day with Jason Alexander.
September finally rolled around, prices increased, and somehow the world didn't end. Instead of breathing a sigh of relief, Netflix's CEO decided to capitalize on the dearth of satisfied customers by making a blog post and a video that not only offered a non-apology apology, but also announced that the DVD rental side of Netflix would become Qwikster, which feature a separate website (including separate queues), separate credit card billing, but would keep the red envelope...which I'm pretty sure no one cared about at all.
Once again, there was plenty of snark regarding the decision, such as Landline's great parody video of Blockbuster's decision to split popcorn sales and DVD rentals and this comic by Brad Colbow.
Unfortunately, there's been a lot of serious coverage, too. Basically, a company that was pretty good made a really poor decision on pricing, then decided to make an even worse decision about splitting operations and using a really bad name. Oh, and did I mention that they don't even have the @Qwikster Twitter account? Turns out that their
To make a long story short, I'm just at a loss as to why so many people are taking this seriously. I understand being annoyed at the sudden and drastic price increase, but at this point, it's stopped being annoying or even mildly frustrating and started being downright hysterical. And really, given all the problems today, don't we all need to embrace humor wherever we find it? Even if it's just the schadenfreude of knowing that the leaders of a major company are capable of levels stupidity that most of us couldn't approach if we tried.
Friday, August 26, 2011
You Wouldn't Unlock a Car, Would You?
In recent months, I've seen several stories where adult entertainment companies have either filed suit, attempted to file suit, or just sent threatening letters to people for copyright infringement. Not surprisingly, more than a few people have quietly settled rather than fight the case. A recent settlement raised some disturbing issues, though.
According to this article, one of plaintiffs (John Doe 4) sued by Corbin Fisher agreed to a $10,401 settlement. He claims he was an "innocent infringer" and agreed to secure his wireless network to prevent anyone from using it to infringe. The breakdown of the settlement, according to Techdirt, is as follows:
* $200 for innocent infringement
* $200 for contributory infringement
* $1 to pay off the conspiracy charge
* $10,000 for the negligence of having an open router
I'm not sure what shocks me more: the idea that an open router is negligent or that it's $10,000 worth of negligence. It seems out of proportion with the damages. Corbin Fisher's attorney attempts to rationalize the negligence here. His argument is simple: If you leave your Wifi open and someone uses it for copyright infringement, then you should bear the responsibility for any injury done by a copyright infringer because you (not the copyright holder) should bear the burden of damages because you were in a much better position to prevent the damages from occurring (i.e. prevent someone from using your Wifi by locking it). The argument is persuasive until you spend even one second thinking about it, then it's utterly ridiculous.
I agree that leaving your Wifi open exposes you to certain risks and I personally keep my Wifi locked both for security reasons and because I don't want to risk an FBI raid because someone uses my network to download child pornography.
I also strongly agree with the theory that the person who was in the position to prevent the injury to another person should be required to take the appropriate steps and, if he doesn't, he, not the innocent injured party, should bear the cost of the injury. In his example, if you leave your keys in your car and if someone steals your car and then destroys a fence, you, rather than the owner of the fence, should bear the cost of replacing the fence because you were in a better position to prevent the destruction of the fence.
The problem with Mr. Randazza's opinion is that it assumes that an unlocked wireless network is inherently bad and people who choose not to lock their network are negligent in the same way that a person who leaves her keys in her car is negligent. He mentions that he chooses not to use a loaded gun analogy because it would be "overly melodramatic and hysterical. This isn't the first time that someone has tried to draw a parallel between piracy and cars. The MPAA's attempt to draw parallels between piracy and car theft struck a lot of people as ridiculous and spawned a lot of parodies, my two personal favorites being the IT Crowd and Futurama.
Furthermore, while I have yet to see anyone arguing that more people should leave the keys in their cars, the EFF has made a pretty solid argument for an Open Wireless Movement, pointing out that there's a legitimate need for widespread access to Wifi and that the potential benefits to the average user (free Wifi anywhere, in an ideal world) would more than offset the potential problems (slower connection and less security)...especially when steps could be taken to minimize those problems.
It's important to remember that there's no case law saying that an open Wifi is negligent and that this is just a settlement by someone who was probably in a fairly weak bargaining position and just wanted to make everything go away without being exposed for allegedly downloading gay pornography. It's entirely possible (and hopefully probable) that if this did to go trial, the idea of open Wifi as negligence would be laughed out of court...though courts seem to have less of a sense of humor than I would hope when the magic words of "intellectual property" come up.
That said, the fact that someone is even trying to make the argument of open Wifi as negligence is somewhat disturbing, since recent months have shown that a lot of truly ridiculous laws are passed when it comes to the internet, copyright infringement, and intellectual property. I understand that the entertainment industry has to make money in order to continue to create movies, music, games, etc and I also realize that piracy is a very real issue, but I don't like the implication that it's my responsibility to prevent third parties from committing copyright infringement.
According to this article, one of plaintiffs (John Doe 4) sued by Corbin Fisher agreed to a $10,401 settlement. He claims he was an "innocent infringer" and agreed to secure his wireless network to prevent anyone from using it to infringe. The breakdown of the settlement, according to Techdirt, is as follows:
* $200 for innocent infringement
* $200 for contributory infringement
* $1 to pay off the conspiracy charge
* $10,000 for the negligence of having an open router
I'm not sure what shocks me more: the idea that an open router is negligent or that it's $10,000 worth of negligence. It seems out of proportion with the damages. Corbin Fisher's attorney attempts to rationalize the negligence here. His argument is simple: If you leave your Wifi open and someone uses it for copyright infringement, then you should bear the responsibility for any injury done by a copyright infringer because you (not the copyright holder) should bear the burden of damages because you were in a much better position to prevent the damages from occurring (i.e. prevent someone from using your Wifi by locking it). The argument is persuasive until you spend even one second thinking about it, then it's utterly ridiculous.
I agree that leaving your Wifi open exposes you to certain risks and I personally keep my Wifi locked both for security reasons and because I don't want to risk an FBI raid because someone uses my network to download child pornography.
I also strongly agree with the theory that the person who was in the position to prevent the injury to another person should be required to take the appropriate steps and, if he doesn't, he, not the innocent injured party, should bear the cost of the injury. In his example, if you leave your keys in your car and if someone steals your car and then destroys a fence, you, rather than the owner of the fence, should bear the cost of replacing the fence because you were in a better position to prevent the destruction of the fence.
The problem with Mr. Randazza's opinion is that it assumes that an unlocked wireless network is inherently bad and people who choose not to lock their network are negligent in the same way that a person who leaves her keys in her car is negligent. He mentions that he chooses not to use a loaded gun analogy because it would be "overly melodramatic and hysterical. This isn't the first time that someone has tried to draw a parallel between piracy and cars. The MPAA's attempt to draw parallels between piracy and car theft struck a lot of people as ridiculous and spawned a lot of parodies, my two personal favorites being the IT Crowd and Futurama.
Furthermore, while I have yet to see anyone arguing that more people should leave the keys in their cars, the EFF has made a pretty solid argument for an Open Wireless Movement, pointing out that there's a legitimate need for widespread access to Wifi and that the potential benefits to the average user (free Wifi anywhere, in an ideal world) would more than offset the potential problems (slower connection and less security)...especially when steps could be taken to minimize those problems.
It's important to remember that there's no case law saying that an open Wifi is negligent and that this is just a settlement by someone who was probably in a fairly weak bargaining position and just wanted to make everything go away without being exposed for allegedly downloading gay pornography. It's entirely possible (and hopefully probable) that if this did to go trial, the idea of open Wifi as negligence would be laughed out of court...though courts seem to have less of a sense of humor than I would hope when the magic words of "intellectual property" come up.
That said, the fact that someone is even trying to make the argument of open Wifi as negligence is somewhat disturbing, since recent months have shown that a lot of truly ridiculous laws are passed when it comes to the internet, copyright infringement, and intellectual property. I understand that the entertainment industry has to make money in order to continue to create movies, music, games, etc and I also realize that piracy is a very real issue, but I don't like the implication that it's my responsibility to prevent third parties from committing copyright infringement.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Netflix Subscription Changes
I had already heard that Netflix was going to drop add a DVD-only plan and charge $7.99 a month. Today, though, I found out that Netflix is doing some major restructuring of their subscription plans. Starting September 1, the plan that I currently use (1 DVD out with streaming for $9.99 a month) will end. I can choose between a $7.99 DVD-only plan, a $7.99 streaming only plan, or I can pay $15.98 for my current plan.
Not surprisingly, Netflix has some annoyed customers. The blog entry announcing this change has 5000 comments, mostly from people complaining about what amounts to a 60% price hike, despite the fact that Netflix is presenting it as "offering [their] lowest prices ever." (As a side note, while a lot of people may indeed end up paying less for Netflix now, saying that it's a price drop is just as much of a logic fail as when AT&T and Verizon got rid of unlimited internet packages and offered less data for a lower price. The fact that you're offering a more bare bones option that means that some customers will save money by paying less money for less product doesn't mean that you've actually dropped prices.)
Personally, I don't care. I joined Netflix about five years ago with the 3 DVD out plan and barely used it until streaming came to the Xbox 360. Now I use it pretty much daily and I have a streaming device on every television I own. I still rarely get DVDs. I've had The Godfather since last June and I still haven't watched it. I should have dropped down to streaming when the option came out, but I've essentially been paying $2 a month for a DVD option. I would have probably continued to do this, but I'm not going to pay $8 a month for that option. If I subscribed to a separate DVD plan, I would have to really get some use out of it and I'm obviously not that big on renting DVDs from Netflix. If Netflix has a significant number of customers like me, then this seems like a really stupid decision because they're basically collecting $2 from me because I want the option of DVD rental, but I'm too lazy to actually rent them.
Of course, I'm probably not a typical Netflix customer and the people complaining the loudest about this change and threatening to quit also might not represent the majority of customers. It's entirely possible that a lot of customers don't use streaming and are annoyed that there's a cheap streaming only alternative, but no DVD only plan.
I seldom rent DVDs, so I'll probably try Redbox or Blockbuster (are they going to be around?) or even outright buy the DVD. The only difference is that I'll be paying less per month. That said, it would have been nice if Netflix offered a bundled plan ($13.98, for instance) or grandfathered older subscribers in. Of course, if they plan to use the money they're making to get a better selection of streaming titles, I'll be a happy camper, price hike or no.
Not surprisingly, Netflix has some annoyed customers. The blog entry announcing this change has 5000 comments, mostly from people complaining about what amounts to a 60% price hike, despite the fact that Netflix is presenting it as "offering [their] lowest prices ever." (As a side note, while a lot of people may indeed end up paying less for Netflix now, saying that it's a price drop is just as much of a logic fail as when AT&T and Verizon got rid of unlimited internet packages and offered less data for a lower price. The fact that you're offering a more bare bones option that means that some customers will save money by paying less money for less product doesn't mean that you've actually dropped prices.)
Personally, I don't care. I joined Netflix about five years ago with the 3 DVD out plan and barely used it until streaming came to the Xbox 360. Now I use it pretty much daily and I have a streaming device on every television I own. I still rarely get DVDs. I've had The Godfather since last June and I still haven't watched it. I should have dropped down to streaming when the option came out, but I've essentially been paying $2 a month for a DVD option. I would have probably continued to do this, but I'm not going to pay $8 a month for that option. If I subscribed to a separate DVD plan, I would have to really get some use out of it and I'm obviously not that big on renting DVDs from Netflix. If Netflix has a significant number of customers like me, then this seems like a really stupid decision because they're basically collecting $2 from me because I want the option of DVD rental, but I'm too lazy to actually rent them.
Of course, I'm probably not a typical Netflix customer and the people complaining the loudest about this change and threatening to quit also might not represent the majority of customers. It's entirely possible that a lot of customers don't use streaming and are annoyed that there's a cheap streaming only alternative, but no DVD only plan.
I seldom rent DVDs, so I'll probably try Redbox or Blockbuster (are they going to be around?) or even outright buy the DVD. The only difference is that I'll be paying less per month. That said, it would have been nice if Netflix offered a bundled plan ($13.98, for instance) or grandfathered older subscribers in. Of course, if they plan to use the money they're making to get a better selection of streaming titles, I'll be a happy camper, price hike or no.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Creepiness, Thy Name Is Facebook
I've made a lot of jokes about Facebook and Twitter stalking. They're not that good. Usually I just say that instead of getting to know someone, I'll just stalk their social media accounts. In my defense, I say it directly to the person and I haven't got an uncomfortable laugh or a restraining order yet, so I'm going to assume that it's perfectly okay to get to know someone by clicking through every picture they've posted, seeing which of their friends I know, and looking at their interests. I'm also going to assume that I'm fine even if it isn't okay, because I generally don't have the attention span to do all of those things...or even half.
My point being, people give up a lot of privacy on Facebook and they do most of it voluntarily or even eagerly. And I'm not even saying it's a bad thing. I like being able to passively keep track of what's going on with various people in my life and status updates and photos let me do that. Plus, with a lot of families living so far apart, being able to post videos and photos of major events is a good thing.
That said, I've noticed that Facebook has a knack for somehow making even benign things creepy. Maybe it's because I'm on the defensive due to Facebook rolling out new features that are invasive and making the least private option the default setting. Maybe it's because I'm aware of the fact that Facebook is a large company whose primary goal is making money and who realized early on that the key to making money was encouraging people to share everything with little or not regard to the consequences. (And maybe that makes me uncomfortable because I'm pretty the Girls Gone Wild videos operate on the same principle.)
Or maybe it's because Facebook presents information in a creepy and awkward way. For instance, tonight, I made a post about being excited that my favorite teahouse was doing a tasting event for my favorite tea (Darjeeling, in case anyone is making their Christmas list early) and the opera is performing an Indian folktalke, The Flowering Tree, the week after. I then discovered that Facebook shows friends' interests that are related to your updates, because showed in the little space where ads and things my friends like show up that "X likes opera."
Is this private information? No, because people had to voluntarily click like. It's even topical. But it's awkward. In fact, it sounds like a conversation with one of those socially awkward people that never seems to be able to carry their part of the conversation. You know, where you tell someone your great and clever story about the charming, funny person you met on your trip to Paris and the person replies "I like French fries."
I guess it's good to find out more about my friends and I suppose this is Facebook's way ofsneaking in directed ads using your friends helping you connect more with your friends, but overall, it just helps to reinforce that feeling that Facebook is the creepy stalker who tries to read over your shoulder on the computer and digs through your garbage in hopes of gaining more insight into what makes you tick by studying your discarded catalogs and fast food receipts. And frankly, it's probably the fear that someone can gain insight into me based on my Williams Sonoma catalogs and receipts for frozen lemonades that makes me uncomfortable with this.
My point being, people give up a lot of privacy on Facebook and they do most of it voluntarily or even eagerly. And I'm not even saying it's a bad thing. I like being able to passively keep track of what's going on with various people in my life and status updates and photos let me do that. Plus, with a lot of families living so far apart, being able to post videos and photos of major events is a good thing.
That said, I've noticed that Facebook has a knack for somehow making even benign things creepy. Maybe it's because I'm on the defensive due to Facebook rolling out new features that are invasive and making the least private option the default setting. Maybe it's because I'm aware of the fact that Facebook is a large company whose primary goal is making money and who realized early on that the key to making money was encouraging people to share everything with little or not regard to the consequences. (And maybe that makes me uncomfortable because I'm pretty the Girls Gone Wild videos operate on the same principle.)
Or maybe it's because Facebook presents information in a creepy and awkward way. For instance, tonight, I made a post about being excited that my favorite teahouse was doing a tasting event for my favorite tea (Darjeeling, in case anyone is making their Christmas list early) and the opera is performing an Indian folktalke, The Flowering Tree, the week after. I then discovered that Facebook shows friends' interests that are related to your updates, because showed in the little space where ads and things my friends like show up that "X likes opera."
Is this private information? No, because people had to voluntarily click like. It's even topical. But it's awkward. In fact, it sounds like a conversation with one of those socially awkward people that never seems to be able to carry their part of the conversation. You know, where you tell someone your great and clever story about the charming, funny person you met on your trip to Paris and the person replies "I like French fries."
I guess it's good to find out more about my friends and I suppose this is Facebook's way of
Saturday, June 4, 2011
A few days ago, I came across a short story called Nanolaw with My Daughter. The premise was interesting: In a world where people were literally being nickeled and dimed with lawsuits, a father sat down and taught his daughter how to answer her own lawsuits. In a day, the daughter received over fifty suits, only a few over a dollar, and several dealing with copyright. It should have been ridiculous (you hum a song walking down the street, the copyright hold catches it on video and demands a few cents because of your infringement), but a couple of stories this week made it seem less so. First, there was a proposed bill that would make it a crime to embed a copyrighted Youtube video without permission. Second, Tennessee passed a bill that makes it a crime to share your entertainment subscription login information. Tennessee's governor supported this by "citing the large record industry presence in Nashville." The article mentioned that the bill was aimed at hackers and thieves who resell passwords, but made sure to mention a couples cases where college students share Netflix login info with everyone they know. Techdirt posted an interesting commentary (RIAA Wants To Put People In Jail For Sharing Their Music Subscription Login With Friends).
This bothers me for a couple of reasons. First, based on my understanding of how Netflix and other providers license content, the recording or movie industry isn't losing money if subscriptions are shared. Netflix pays a yearly fee for licenses (for instance, $30 million for Starz content). Period. Starz doesn't get paid more if Netflix has more accounts or less if they have fewer. In other words, Starz gets $30 million a year, even if everyone with a Netflix account shares their password with everyone they know. I assume that other companies license content in a similar way. So I'm a little unclear as to how the RIAA is claiming that sharing subscription info is resulting in lost revenue. At most, Netflix and Rhapsody are losing subscription revenue.
Second, why is this being criminalized? Looking over Rhapsody's terms of use, only the user can access the service. Netflix limits usage to members of the immediate household. Obviously, sharing login information violates the terms of use and could result in an account being terminated, in addition to possible civil liability. Furthermore, entertainment services already have protections in place to prevent massive password sharing. Rhapsody will only stream to one device at a time and Rhapsody to Go limits the user to three devices. Netflix only allows the user to have six authorized devices as well as the number of devices that can stream simultaneously (between one and four devices, depending on the plan). That alone would probably dissuade most users from sharing login information. It's all well and good to let ten of your best buddies watch their favorite shows and listen to their favorite songs for free with your subscriptions when it doesn't affect you, but when it means that you might not be able to use the service you're paying for, it's a lot less tempting.
Personally, I'm getting tired of hearing about how the recording industry's profits are down and how movie piracy hurts corn farmers. Like most people, I consume a lot of media and I'm a huge fan of streaming media. I subscribe to Netflix, Hulu Plus, and Rhapsody To Go and I come out ahead for doing it. In fact, since I subscribed to Rhapsody to Go at the beginning of this year, I haven't bought any music. I'm still buying DVDs, but I'm definitely spending less as Netflix increases their catalog. I still buy games and books, although I'm using the library more for books and I would happily pay a reasonable monthly subscription if I found a good streaming game service or if I could download all the ebook I wanted.
In short, I understand and accept that the entertainment industry has to make money to continue producing works. I also understand that consumers have to pay for content. However, just because the entertainment industry likes the model where the only way hear a song is to either listen to the radio for hours or pay $15 or more to buy the entire CD for one song doesn't mean that they can turn back time and recreate that model. Like it or not, today's consumers are accustomed to being able to either buy songs a la carte or pay a flat fee for all you can eat. If the RIAA's profits are decreasing because of this (and I'm skeptical as to whether they are), then maybe they should be grateful that they managed to get away with overcharging consumers for so many years and try to figure out how to make a fair amount with the current model. Personally, if I had to go back to the days of buying an entire album to get one song (assuming, of course, I could even find the album in a store), I would probably just stop buying music completely.
This bothers me for a couple of reasons. First, based on my understanding of how Netflix and other providers license content, the recording or movie industry isn't losing money if subscriptions are shared. Netflix pays a yearly fee for licenses (for instance, $30 million for Starz content). Period. Starz doesn't get paid more if Netflix has more accounts or less if they have fewer. In other words, Starz gets $30 million a year, even if everyone with a Netflix account shares their password with everyone they know. I assume that other companies license content in a similar way. So I'm a little unclear as to how the RIAA is claiming that sharing subscription info is resulting in lost revenue. At most, Netflix and Rhapsody are losing subscription revenue.
Second, why is this being criminalized? Looking over Rhapsody's terms of use, only the user can access the service. Netflix limits usage to members of the immediate household. Obviously, sharing login information violates the terms of use and could result in an account being terminated, in addition to possible civil liability. Furthermore, entertainment services already have protections in place to prevent massive password sharing. Rhapsody will only stream to one device at a time and Rhapsody to Go limits the user to three devices. Netflix only allows the user to have six authorized devices as well as the number of devices that can stream simultaneously (between one and four devices, depending on the plan). That alone would probably dissuade most users from sharing login information. It's all well and good to let ten of your best buddies watch their favorite shows and listen to their favorite songs for free with your subscriptions when it doesn't affect you, but when it means that you might not be able to use the service you're paying for, it's a lot less tempting.
Personally, I'm getting tired of hearing about how the recording industry's profits are down and how movie piracy hurts corn farmers. Like most people, I consume a lot of media and I'm a huge fan of streaming media. I subscribe to Netflix, Hulu Plus, and Rhapsody To Go and I come out ahead for doing it. In fact, since I subscribed to Rhapsody to Go at the beginning of this year, I haven't bought any music. I'm still buying DVDs, but I'm definitely spending less as Netflix increases their catalog. I still buy games and books, although I'm using the library more for books and I would happily pay a reasonable monthly subscription if I found a good streaming game service or if I could download all the ebook I wanted.
In short, I understand and accept that the entertainment industry has to make money to continue producing works. I also understand that consumers have to pay for content. However, just because the entertainment industry likes the model where the only way hear a song is to either listen to the radio for hours or pay $15 or more to buy the entire CD for one song doesn't mean that they can turn back time and recreate that model. Like it or not, today's consumers are accustomed to being able to either buy songs a la carte or pay a flat fee for all you can eat. If the RIAA's profits are decreasing because of this (and I'm skeptical as to whether they are), then maybe they should be grateful that they managed to get away with overcharging consumers for so many years and try to figure out how to make a fair amount with the current model. Personally, if I had to go back to the days of buying an entire album to get one song (assuming, of course, I could even find the album in a store), I would probably just stop buying music completely.
Friday, April 8, 2011
My Take on Extreme Couponing
I've seen a lot of posts on the TLC series Extreme Couponing. If you aren't familiar with it, it follows people who use an elaborate coupon system to save money. When I say elaborate, I mean things like getting dozens of coupon inserts from neighbors, ordering clipped coupons from online clipping services, and even dumpster diving to get enough coupons; searching websites and circulars to match up the best deals; spending hours planning a shopping trip; and doing marathon shopping trips that usually involve multiple carts (one person had nine). And when I talk about saving money, I mean dropping a $500 grocery bill down to $6.
I'm all for clipping coupon and watching sales. I think that everyone should at least glance through whatever coupons they get (in my case, some through direct mail and some with the newspaper) and skim over the week's circulars for their favorite stores to see what's on sale and where they can save money. You may not save much, but consider this: If you can take $10 off your grocery bill every week and put it in just a basic savings account earning 2% interest, in 30 years, you will have over $19,000 in the bank. If you cut more corners and invest wisely, it could be a lot more.
For me, I like saving money and keep an eye out for good coupons and try to use them at the right time. I also watch the circulars. I had initially tried to do a price book where I tracked the prices of various items at the stores I frequented to see which store had the lowest price, how low the price was, and how often it went on sale. That didn't work because I made it too complicated. Still, just by flipping through circulars, I've started to figure out "good" prices for certain things. Eventually, I may retry to price book, but I'm not sure.
Anyway, as anyone with common sense should be able to figure out, you can save quite a bit of money through learning prices, applying coupons where appropriate, and stocking up whenever possible. With some things, it may not make that much difference. If it takes you six months to use all of a product and it only costs $3 at it's most expensive and $2 at it's cheapest....well, over ten years, if you manage to always get it at the cheapest price, you've managed to save $20. Again, it does add up. However, for more expensive items that are used quickly? That's when it gets you. For example, my Dad's ophthalmologist recommended he take ICaps, a supplement for eye health. After shopping around, the best price I found ran about $15-17 dollars for a month's supply. I found them buy one get one half off and used a $3 coupon and saved quite a bit. (Then I realized they were cheaper on Amazon and kicked myself, but that's another story...) They point it, save $5 on a product that you're buying monthly and that adds up to $60 a year or $600 over ten years. Do that on a few things and the savings start to add up, letting you build a nice emergency fund, save more for retirement, or just have a little extra money to play with...or all three.
In short, I support reasonable, commonsense efforts to save money.
That said, I'm not sure that what any of the "Extreme Couponers" did was really about saving money. And, if it was, at what cost? One thing I noticed was that when the person being featured would talk about her stockpile (and there's almost always a stockpile), the music sounded very similar to what was used on Hoarders. In fact, I pointed out to my roommate that this show was genius on the part of TLC because they would have a good idea of where to find people to feature on their hoarding show Hoarding: Buried Alive. Their stockpiles had, in some cases, started taking over their life. I'm all for stocking up and I would love to have at least 3 months worth of longer lasting supplies and the ability to eat for two weeks without shopping (and I also need to stock drinking water), but there's a limit. I don't want the last thing I see at night and the first thing I see in the morning to be a shelf full of toilet paper. And I don't care if mustard never really goes bad, I don't want to eat three year old mustard. Furthermore, in a book on organization, the author had a nice exercise to see what disorganization really cost. It involved figuring out how much of each room was occupied by junk and figuring out how much it compared to your mortgage. How much are these people paying to store their stockpiles?
Second, it was time consuming. If you have extra time, why not use it to save money by clipping coupons? I could even see someone approaching it as a nine to five job, because if you can get a months worth of groceries for $5, that could potentially offset a low-paying job. But a lot of the people had jobs and families and still dedicated an insane amount of time to saving money. One woman worked a full-time job and spent 70 hours a week on coupons. How much is their time worth? If you're getting $1000 in free groceries a month and spending 280 (70 *4) hours a month to do it, that means that you're pretty much earning $3.50 an hour. Contrast that with getting a second full-time job (40 hours per week) at federal minimum wage ($7.25) and you'll make $1160 per month (ignoring, of course, taxes and the like). Some people viewed it as a hobby, but a 70 hour per week hobby is still excessive.
Third, it was disrupting the lives of their family. (All but one person profiled were married, most had kids...including one parent who stored 1400 rolls of toilet paper under her 2 year old's bed.) I'm sure the families benefited and most of them were supportive enough, but I didn't really see anyone who shared the couponer's passion for the hobby.
Fourth, how much were they really saving? Yes, they were walking out with $1000 of groceries for $100, but if not for the coupons, would they really have bought $1,000 of groceries? It seemed like they weren't buying what they needed or would use, but getting as much as they could get for as little as possible. One description referred to them as "shopaholics" and I think it really was yet another example of over-consumption, just at a very low price.
And finally, their behavior. In a couple of cases, they seemed ashamed of how much their stockpile had taken over their lives. Other times, the couponer would be visibly worried at the checkout, worrying that she had made a mistake in her calculations and would have to actually pay for hundreds of dollars of groceries or seemed extremely stressed that the store wasn't equipped for their kind of shopping. (In two separate cases, the register locked up because the shopper had hit either an item or total limit.)
I realize these people were handpicked for human interest and so probably don't represent even the people who use coupons that aggressively, so I'm not making judgments about extreme couponers as a whole, but for those people? As much as I love saving money and as much as I agreed with some of their general principals, I couldn't relate to most of them and I didn't view them as models of frugality. In fact, I think a lot of them were anything but frugal when it came to their shopping habits. And, possibly more significantly, despite the fact that most of them were very vocal about what they saved, they seemed just as obsessed and worried over finances as someone who had $50,000 in debt. So if they intended to use coupons as a way to improve their financial security, I think they're missing the point of financial security.
Anyway, this is all a long and convoluted way of saying that I agree with what most people are saying: The show is fascinating and I love any show that lets me look at it and pat myself on my back for my moderation and perspective, but I just can't imagine living like that.
I'm all for clipping coupon and watching sales. I think that everyone should at least glance through whatever coupons they get (in my case, some through direct mail and some with the newspaper) and skim over the week's circulars for their favorite stores to see what's on sale and where they can save money. You may not save much, but consider this: If you can take $10 off your grocery bill every week and put it in just a basic savings account earning 2% interest, in 30 years, you will have over $19,000 in the bank. If you cut more corners and invest wisely, it could be a lot more.
For me, I like saving money and keep an eye out for good coupons and try to use them at the right time. I also watch the circulars. I had initially tried to do a price book where I tracked the prices of various items at the stores I frequented to see which store had the lowest price, how low the price was, and how often it went on sale. That didn't work because I made it too complicated. Still, just by flipping through circulars, I've started to figure out "good" prices for certain things. Eventually, I may retry to price book, but I'm not sure.
Anyway, as anyone with common sense should be able to figure out, you can save quite a bit of money through learning prices, applying coupons where appropriate, and stocking up whenever possible. With some things, it may not make that much difference. If it takes you six months to use all of a product and it only costs $3 at it's most expensive and $2 at it's cheapest....well, over ten years, if you manage to always get it at the cheapest price, you've managed to save $20. Again, it does add up. However, for more expensive items that are used quickly? That's when it gets you. For example, my Dad's ophthalmologist recommended he take ICaps, a supplement for eye health. After shopping around, the best price I found ran about $15-17 dollars for a month's supply. I found them buy one get one half off and used a $3 coupon and saved quite a bit. (Then I realized they were cheaper on Amazon and kicked myself, but that's another story...) They point it, save $5 on a product that you're buying monthly and that adds up to $60 a year or $600 over ten years. Do that on a few things and the savings start to add up, letting you build a nice emergency fund, save more for retirement, or just have a little extra money to play with...or all three.
In short, I support reasonable, commonsense efforts to save money.
That said, I'm not sure that what any of the "Extreme Couponers" did was really about saving money. And, if it was, at what cost? One thing I noticed was that when the person being featured would talk about her stockpile (and there's almost always a stockpile), the music sounded very similar to what was used on Hoarders. In fact, I pointed out to my roommate that this show was genius on the part of TLC because they would have a good idea of where to find people to feature on their hoarding show Hoarding: Buried Alive. Their stockpiles had, in some cases, started taking over their life. I'm all for stocking up and I would love to have at least 3 months worth of longer lasting supplies and the ability to eat for two weeks without shopping (and I also need to stock drinking water), but there's a limit. I don't want the last thing I see at night and the first thing I see in the morning to be a shelf full of toilet paper. And I don't care if mustard never really goes bad, I don't want to eat three year old mustard. Furthermore, in a book on organization, the author had a nice exercise to see what disorganization really cost. It involved figuring out how much of each room was occupied by junk and figuring out how much it compared to your mortgage. How much are these people paying to store their stockpiles?
Second, it was time consuming. If you have extra time, why not use it to save money by clipping coupons? I could even see someone approaching it as a nine to five job, because if you can get a months worth of groceries for $5, that could potentially offset a low-paying job. But a lot of the people had jobs and families and still dedicated an insane amount of time to saving money. One woman worked a full-time job and spent 70 hours a week on coupons. How much is their time worth? If you're getting $1000 in free groceries a month and spending 280 (70 *4) hours a month to do it, that means that you're pretty much earning $3.50 an hour. Contrast that with getting a second full-time job (40 hours per week) at federal minimum wage ($7.25) and you'll make $1160 per month (ignoring, of course, taxes and the like). Some people viewed it as a hobby, but a 70 hour per week hobby is still excessive.
Third, it was disrupting the lives of their family. (All but one person profiled were married, most had kids...including one parent who stored 1400 rolls of toilet paper under her 2 year old's bed.) I'm sure the families benefited and most of them were supportive enough, but I didn't really see anyone who shared the couponer's passion for the hobby.
Fourth, how much were they really saving? Yes, they were walking out with $1000 of groceries for $100, but if not for the coupons, would they really have bought $1,000 of groceries? It seemed like they weren't buying what they needed or would use, but getting as much as they could get for as little as possible. One description referred to them as "shopaholics" and I think it really was yet another example of over-consumption, just at a very low price.
And finally, their behavior. In a couple of cases, they seemed ashamed of how much their stockpile had taken over their lives. Other times, the couponer would be visibly worried at the checkout, worrying that she had made a mistake in her calculations and would have to actually pay for hundreds of dollars of groceries or seemed extremely stressed that the store wasn't equipped for their kind of shopping. (In two separate cases, the register locked up because the shopper had hit either an item or total limit.)
I realize these people were handpicked for human interest and so probably don't represent even the people who use coupons that aggressively, so I'm not making judgments about extreme couponers as a whole, but for those people? As much as I love saving money and as much as I agreed with some of their general principals, I couldn't relate to most of them and I didn't view them as models of frugality. In fact, I think a lot of them were anything but frugal when it came to their shopping habits. And, possibly more significantly, despite the fact that most of them were very vocal about what they saved, they seemed just as obsessed and worried over finances as someone who had $50,000 in debt. So if they intended to use coupons as a way to improve their financial security, I think they're missing the point of financial security.
Anyway, this is all a long and convoluted way of saying that I agree with what most people are saying: The show is fascinating and I love any show that lets me look at it and pat myself on my back for my moderation and perspective, but I just can't imagine living like that.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
The Great Phone Debate 2011
I've had AT&T since it took over Cingular and it's never been that great. Until I got a smartphone, the biggest problem was the dropped calls and lack of reception in certain areas. It was actually amazingly predictable in some places and people I talked to frequently could actually figure out where I was based on dropped calls. When I upgraded to a smart phone in 2009, I discovered a new reason to be frustrated: their internet. It wasn't that noticeable at first, since I had a Blackberry Pearl that didn't have 3G (which meant, though I didn't realize it at the time, that I only connected to the Edge network, even in 3G areas, yet I was still paying $30 per month for data). Once I upgraded to a Blackberry Bold, the problem became more pronounced, since I would sometimes have 3G (which works well enough) and have to deal with Edge other times (which is sloooooow). My other mistake was in getting another Blackberry and signing a two year contract that expires in 9/12. My reason for this was that I had trouble wrapping my mind around paying $200-300 for a phone with a contract (which ruled out Droids and iPhones) and I paid about $50 for the Blackberry with a contract. It worked better than my Pearl in the same way that even an old car running on the worst gas possible works better than a bicycle...except when it stops working completely.
I've been frustrated enough to want a new phone and possibly a new wireless company (Verizon is looking pretty good now), but I wanted to wait until the new iPhone came out. By then, I would be able to see how the iPhone looked, compare it to the available Droids, and the longer I waited, the lower my ETF would be if I switched to another provider. (Right now, it's $275.)
My view changed Gamestop debacle last week. I had a coupon for a "Buy Two Get One Free" on used games that I didn't print out, but decided to use in the store. The guys working there said I could just go to my account on the website and pull up the code, so I tried it. And tried it again. And again. First, I couldn't even log in with the Blackberry's native browser, so I tried Opera. Then, the coupon was a PDF file and while it downloaded to my phone, neither my roommate nor I could figure out how to open it. We tried multiple things and nothing. The frustration was increased by AT&T's slow Edge network (which made loading pages horrible) and the Blackberry's overall slowness (which made switching apps equally frustrating). We started around 8:45 and finally left the store at about 9:20 and we still weren't able to pull up the coupon.
This, more than any other problem I've had with my phone, drove home the fact that I'm paying for a service that I can't fully use. I've been debating whether I really needed a smartphone for a couple of months now, since I've noticed that I use my iPod Touch much more than my Blackberry. My Blackberry gets used mainly for a quick web check, email, Facebook (and the reliability on that is 50/50) or Google maps. I track my spending on my Touch, organize coupons, use Rhapsody, organize store cards, and lots of other things. Forgetting my Blackberry is inconvenient if I need a phone or if I need to check an address or pull up a number, forgetting my Touch affects my daily routine. And there's also the fact that I'm carry two devices, one that comes with a $30 monthly fee and I use 25% of my time, one that is free and I use the remaining 75%.
Based on this, I've come up with a few different plans of action. Here's what I have so far:
Stay with AT&T and Do Nothing. This one seems like the worst of all possible worlds. I'll stay with my current provider (AT&T), keep my current phone (Blackberry Bold), and current plan ($30 unlimited data pack). The one pro to this is that it requires the least effort and I won't incur any additional expenses by buying a new phone or paying an Early Termination Fee of $275 (it will keep dropping $10 per month). The other pro is that I'll keep my $30 unlimited plan, which is grandfathered in and I would lose if I dropped t. This may also be a con in pro's clothing, though. When I had my Pearl, with the exception of one month, my data usage never exceeded 26MB. Getting the Bold in September increased my data usage, so I currently use an average of 96.3MB per month with a max of 120.4MB and a minimum of 57.9MB. Not surprisingly, the amount of data used increased with the more time I spend in 3G coverage areas and decreases with Edge. Based on this, I could easily drop to the $25 2GB plan and probably drop to the $15 200MB plan. The other thing to consider on this is that while switching providers would cost $275 as of this payment cycle, keeping the unlimited data plan is going to cost $580.
Keep AT&T, Switch Smartphones. A better phone might offset the incredibly slow internet. I know that a significant portion of my problems last week were related to the Blackberry's limitations. The problem with this is that getting a new phone will involve signing a new contract and buying a new phone, which would probably run at least $100. There are a couple of Droid and iPhone options below that, but most are at least $200. And I'm still going to be paying $30 per month (or $25, if I drop to a limited plan) for a service I'm not happy with. This is the worst choice.
Keep AT&T, Downgrade to a "Dumbphone." This option has its merits. The biggest cons again would be either signing a new contract or else paying a significant amount out of pocket to avoid a contract. A contract would mean a free or very cheap phone and, since the non-smartphone ETF is $175 less $4 for every month of completed service, if I rode it out for the remaining 18 months on my Blackberry contract (I have extra lines available for upgrade), the ETF would be a little over $100. The data plan would run $30 per month for unlimited data and texting and I'm currently paying $45 for a smartphone data plan and 1500 texts. Alternatively, I could drop to 1000 texts which would put the cost at $25. The biggest pro to this is that I managed to get a 450 plan. Looking at last month's bill, I used 143 rollover minutes, 323 minutes, and 220 expired. I also have 3300 rollover minutes banked. Switching to a regular phone would drop my bill by between $15-$20 dollars per month, not counting fees and taxes.
Switch to Verizon and Keep My Blackberry. Pros here would be faster internet. Cons are AT&T's $275 ETF, higher prices (the cheapest plan I could put together with a smartphone still ran about $25 more than my current bill), losing free calls to my parents' landline (they're on AT&T, so it doesn't cost minutes), and losing free mobile to mobile with friends who use AT&T. I could get Friends and Family, but that would increase my bill another $20. Also, I'm still stuck with my Blackberry, so I'm on the fence.
Switch to Verizon and Get a New Phone Same cons as switching to Verizon and keeping my Blackberry, but also add the cost for a new phone (again, budgeting $100 would be conservative, I think), another contract, and my $275 ETF.
Switch to Verizon and Get a "Dumbphone" This would reduce the cost of a new phone and a data plan, but it's still going to be more with Verizon. Also, given that I would use that phone less for internet access, I'm not sure how much 3G would matter.
Drop to Voice and Texting Only and Get MiFi This would work for either AT&T or Verizon, but AT&T would have more advantages. I've been looking at the Virgin MiFi Hotspot for a while and I really like the idea. It costs $150 for the device and then either $50 per month for unlimited data (2.5GB 3G, then 256K when 2.5GB is reached) or $10 for 10 days with a limited of 100MB. The second plan is intriguing to me, because daily use would mean 30 per month for 300MB assuming daily use and possibly being able to get away with $10 per month when I didn't use the service daily and used it lightly. The MiFi also works with multiple devices and the devices treat the connection as a WiFi connection instead of 3G, which makes a difference with some sites or services. (Verizon offers a similar service with the device free with a 2 year contract or $70 with a one year, but the monthly service fee is $60). Since I jump back and forth between my Touch and my iPad, this might be a nice option and if I knew how well Virgin MiFi would work, I'd probably jump on this option right away. Unfortunately $150 is a lot to spend when I don't know how it works.
The bottom line is that I'm pretty fed up with paying $30 for a service that's unusable half the time and I'm not that crazy about dumping another $100-300 for a new phone that may or may not improve my issues, but that will extend my contract with a company I don't like doing business with. Verizon looks good and seems to have some great reviews and some loyal customers. (Plus "Verizon Sucks" gets 323,000 Google hits, "AT&T Sucks" gets 4,410,000 hits.) That said, I'm not sure how much wireless phone service is worth to me period and how much good (or great) service is worth to me vs adequate service. (And make no mistake, AT&T service is adequate. Calls go through, but drop more than I like, service is sometimes spotty in places where it shouldn't be, and I'm thoroughly unimpressed with their customer service.) But is Verizon service really worth an extra $30 per month or $360 per year? Or, for a two year contract, $720?
I'm going to talk to Verizon to see if I can get a better deal in-store than on the website. My sweet spot is about $90 for the equivalent of my current plan. If someone can offer my that, I would switch in a heartbeat because that's going to put me in the same place financially that staying with AT&T would leave me. I doubt that's realistic, though, so I think it's going to be a game of "how low can you go" until I find out exactly what "good" vs "adequate" service is really worth to me.
That said, being able to leave AT&T without losing money would put me over the moon.
I've been frustrated enough to want a new phone and possibly a new wireless company (Verizon is looking pretty good now), but I wanted to wait until the new iPhone came out. By then, I would be able to see how the iPhone looked, compare it to the available Droids, and the longer I waited, the lower my ETF would be if I switched to another provider. (Right now, it's $275.)
My view changed Gamestop debacle last week. I had a coupon for a "Buy Two Get One Free" on used games that I didn't print out, but decided to use in the store. The guys working there said I could just go to my account on the website and pull up the code, so I tried it. And tried it again. And again. First, I couldn't even log in with the Blackberry's native browser, so I tried Opera. Then, the coupon was a PDF file and while it downloaded to my phone, neither my roommate nor I could figure out how to open it. We tried multiple things and nothing. The frustration was increased by AT&T's slow Edge network (which made loading pages horrible) and the Blackberry's overall slowness (which made switching apps equally frustrating). We started around 8:45 and finally left the store at about 9:20 and we still weren't able to pull up the coupon.
This, more than any other problem I've had with my phone, drove home the fact that I'm paying for a service that I can't fully use. I've been debating whether I really needed a smartphone for a couple of months now, since I've noticed that I use my iPod Touch much more than my Blackberry. My Blackberry gets used mainly for a quick web check, email, Facebook (and the reliability on that is 50/50) or Google maps. I track my spending on my Touch, organize coupons, use Rhapsody, organize store cards, and lots of other things. Forgetting my Blackberry is inconvenient if I need a phone or if I need to check an address or pull up a number, forgetting my Touch affects my daily routine. And there's also the fact that I'm carry two devices, one that comes with a $30 monthly fee and I use 25% of my time, one that is free and I use the remaining 75%.
Based on this, I've come up with a few different plans of action. Here's what I have so far:
Stay with AT&T and Do Nothing. This one seems like the worst of all possible worlds. I'll stay with my current provider (AT&T), keep my current phone (Blackberry Bold), and current plan ($30 unlimited data pack). The one pro to this is that it requires the least effort and I won't incur any additional expenses by buying a new phone or paying an Early Termination Fee of $275 (it will keep dropping $10 per month). The other pro is that I'll keep my $30 unlimited plan, which is grandfathered in and I would lose if I dropped t. This may also be a con in pro's clothing, though. When I had my Pearl, with the exception of one month, my data usage never exceeded 26MB. Getting the Bold in September increased my data usage, so I currently use an average of 96.3MB per month with a max of 120.4MB and a minimum of 57.9MB. Not surprisingly, the amount of data used increased with the more time I spend in 3G coverage areas and decreases with Edge. Based on this, I could easily drop to the $25 2GB plan and probably drop to the $15 200MB plan. The other thing to consider on this is that while switching providers would cost $275 as of this payment cycle, keeping the unlimited data plan is going to cost $580.
Keep AT&T, Switch Smartphones. A better phone might offset the incredibly slow internet. I know that a significant portion of my problems last week were related to the Blackberry's limitations. The problem with this is that getting a new phone will involve signing a new contract and buying a new phone, which would probably run at least $100. There are a couple of Droid and iPhone options below that, but most are at least $200. And I'm still going to be paying $30 per month (or $25, if I drop to a limited plan) for a service I'm not happy with. This is the worst choice.
Keep AT&T, Downgrade to a "Dumbphone." This option has its merits. The biggest cons again would be either signing a new contract or else paying a significant amount out of pocket to avoid a contract. A contract would mean a free or very cheap phone and, since the non-smartphone ETF is $175 less $4 for every month of completed service, if I rode it out for the remaining 18 months on my Blackberry contract (I have extra lines available for upgrade), the ETF would be a little over $100. The data plan would run $30 per month for unlimited data and texting and I'm currently paying $45 for a smartphone data plan and 1500 texts. Alternatively, I could drop to 1000 texts which would put the cost at $25. The biggest pro to this is that I managed to get a 450 plan. Looking at last month's bill, I used 143 rollover minutes, 323 minutes, and 220 expired. I also have 3300 rollover minutes banked. Switching to a regular phone would drop my bill by between $15-$20 dollars per month, not counting fees and taxes.
Switch to Verizon and Keep My Blackberry. Pros here would be faster internet. Cons are AT&T's $275 ETF, higher prices (the cheapest plan I could put together with a smartphone still ran about $25 more than my current bill), losing free calls to my parents' landline (they're on AT&T, so it doesn't cost minutes), and losing free mobile to mobile with friends who use AT&T. I could get Friends and Family, but that would increase my bill another $20. Also, I'm still stuck with my Blackberry, so I'm on the fence.
Switch to Verizon and Get a New Phone Same cons as switching to Verizon and keeping my Blackberry, but also add the cost for a new phone (again, budgeting $100 would be conservative, I think), another contract, and my $275 ETF.
Switch to Verizon and Get a "Dumbphone" This would reduce the cost of a new phone and a data plan, but it's still going to be more with Verizon. Also, given that I would use that phone less for internet access, I'm not sure how much 3G would matter.
Drop to Voice and Texting Only and Get MiFi This would work for either AT&T or Verizon, but AT&T would have more advantages. I've been looking at the Virgin MiFi Hotspot for a while and I really like the idea. It costs $150 for the device and then either $50 per month for unlimited data (2.5GB 3G, then 256K when 2.5GB is reached) or $10 for 10 days with a limited of 100MB. The second plan is intriguing to me, because daily use would mean 30 per month for 300MB assuming daily use and possibly being able to get away with $10 per month when I didn't use the service daily and used it lightly. The MiFi also works with multiple devices and the devices treat the connection as a WiFi connection instead of 3G, which makes a difference with some sites or services. (Verizon offers a similar service with the device free with a 2 year contract or $70 with a one year, but the monthly service fee is $60). Since I jump back and forth between my Touch and my iPad, this might be a nice option and if I knew how well Virgin MiFi would work, I'd probably jump on this option right away. Unfortunately $150 is a lot to spend when I don't know how it works.
The bottom line is that I'm pretty fed up with paying $30 for a service that's unusable half the time and I'm not that crazy about dumping another $100-300 for a new phone that may or may not improve my issues, but that will extend my contract with a company I don't like doing business with. Verizon looks good and seems to have some great reviews and some loyal customers. (Plus "Verizon Sucks" gets 323,000 Google hits, "AT&T Sucks" gets 4,410,000 hits.) That said, I'm not sure how much wireless phone service is worth to me period and how much good (or great) service is worth to me vs adequate service. (And make no mistake, AT&T service is adequate. Calls go through, but drop more than I like, service is sometimes spotty in places where it shouldn't be, and I'm thoroughly unimpressed with their customer service.) But is Verizon service really worth an extra $30 per month or $360 per year? Or, for a two year contract, $720?
I'm going to talk to Verizon to see if I can get a better deal in-store than on the website. My sweet spot is about $90 for the equivalent of my current plan. If someone can offer my that, I would switch in a heartbeat because that's going to put me in the same place financially that staying with AT&T would leave me. I doubt that's realistic, though, so I think it's going to be a game of "how low can you go" until I find out exactly what "good" vs "adequate" service is really worth to me.
That said, being able to leave AT&T without losing money would put me over the moon.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Persona Friday: Cherry Blossoms
One of my favorite things about Firefox is the Personas add-on. In fact, one of the top tags on my Diigo account is "Christmas Personas." I also use Personas Rotators, so I get a new Persona every few minutes. It definitely falls under the category of "small things that make me happy," because seeing a particularly cute one when I've had a bad day or a gorgeous nature one when I'm stuck inside because of bad weather definitely brightens my day.
I'm constantly browsing the site, I thought I'd share a few of my favorites. All the cherry trees in bloom now, so I'd thought I'd share some of my favorite cherry blossom Personas.
1. A Flowering Springtime Cherry
2. Cherry Blossom Sakura
3. White Cherry Blossoms in the Sun
4. Pink Cherry Blossoms
5. Sakura Flower Symbol of Japan
How to use Personas: Go to the Personas page and click the green button to install. After that, you can click on the Persona you like and choose "Wear This" or, if you're created an account, add it to your favorites by clicking "Add to Favorites."
Installing the Personas Rotator: Go to here and click the green "Add to Firefox" button. You'll be required to restart Firefox and then you can enable it by going to the Tools menu, then selection the Personas sub-menu, then the Persona's Rotator sub-menu, then selected "Enable Rotation." If you create an account at Get Personas, it will cycle through the Personas in your favorites. If not, it will cycle through random Personas. Warning: If you just allow it to rotate through random personas without creating an account, it will pick from all the available Personas. While I haven't encountered anything terribly offensive, I limit the Peronas to my favorites so that every third rotation isn't a sexy woman in a bikini.)
I'm constantly browsing the site, I thought I'd share a few of my favorites. All the cherry trees in bloom now, so I'd thought I'd share some of my favorite cherry blossom Personas.
1. A Flowering Springtime Cherry
2. Cherry Blossom Sakura
3. White Cherry Blossoms in the Sun
4. Pink Cherry Blossoms
5. Sakura Flower Symbol of Japan
How to use Personas: Go to the Personas page and click the green button to install. After that, you can click on the Persona you like and choose "Wear This" or, if you're created an account, add it to your favorites by clicking "Add to Favorites."
Installing the Personas Rotator: Go to here and click the green "Add to Firefox" button. You'll be required to restart Firefox and then you can enable it by going to the Tools menu, then selection the Personas sub-menu, then the Persona's Rotator sub-menu, then selected "Enable Rotation." If you create an account at Get Personas, it will cycle through the Personas in your favorites. If not, it will cycle through random Personas. Warning: If you just allow it to rotate through random personas without creating an account, it will pick from all the available Personas. While I haven't encountered anything terribly offensive, I limit the Peronas to my favorites so that every third rotation isn't a sexy woman in a bikini.)
Personal Finance, Minimalism, and (Not) Spending Money
For the past few months, I've been reading personal finance blogs. I find them fascinating, specifically seeing how other people are spending (or not spending) their money. Most of the blogs read aren't very heavy on investment advice or telling you how to most effectively minimize your tax penalty. Most of them focus on saving or, perhaps more accurately, not spending money. It was a whole new world, because my idea of not spending is passing on the book I'm looking at or ordering a less expensive item in a restaurant. Imagine my surprise when I found out that a few people have declared "no spending years" and it's not uncommon to declare a no spend week or month. (No spending, if you're wondering, generally isn't literal. People buy groceries, pay rent, buy gas, etc... they just limit their spending to necessities). I've been inspired to try to do a "no spend" day once a week, but it seldom works out...not because I'm routinely spending huge amounts of cash on a daily basis. I usually get tripped up by little things, like a soda or a coffee or realizing I forgot to pick something up I really need. It's mainly due to poor planning on my part combined with a slight lack of impulse control when it comes to very small purchases.
Another topic that seems to be closely related to personal finance (at least in the blogs I'm reading) is minimalism. Very few of the blogs I read embrace "true" minimalism. If you want an entertaining (highly exaggerated and very tongue in cheek) explanation, check out this video. One thing I see frequently with minimalists is counting their possessions and occasionally posting the lists of what they own. 100 things or less seems to be a goal for a lot of people. I like having possessions and can't imagine ever limiting myself to less than 100 things, but on the other hand, I'm not sure that I need the 100 ink pens and pencils I seem to have, for example.
One thing I like about it, though, is the idea of really putting thought into what you buy. Even if you budget fairly carefully and limit the amount you can spend in frivolous categories, you're possibly only preventing yourself from spending more than you can afford, which means that you still may be buying things you don't really want or need because the money's there. This was the subject of a debate between myself and my roommate in terms of budgeting. If you limit yourself to spending X dollars on entertainment each month, what happens if you spend $50? Her opinion was that anything she didn't spend in the course of a month should go into savings. That's a good thing, I think, but I voted for at least some rollover. First, she might want an item that costs more than $100 one month. Second, I think that no rollover could possibly encourage a "use it or lose it" mentality, where she bought items that she didn't really want that much just because she had the money and wasn't' going to use it.
Weighing the value of your purchases certainly isn't a new concept. I can't remember how many times my mother asked me "Is that really worth the money you'd spend?" or dismissed something, saying "I like it, but I don't like it $xx worth." And a few years ago, when times started getting tough for everyone, I remember Suze Orman suggesting that people should try to live on half their actual income. It seemed like a good idea, but it didn't really resonate with me until I read Everyday Minimalist's announcement that she had earned enough in January-March to cover her expenses for the year and had declared 2011 "The Year of Travel." Granted, she has a relatively high income (according to her blog, $17,000-21,000 per month), so this probably isn't feasible for most people, but still... Wrap your mind around the idea of being able to say in before the year's 1/3 over "Okay, I've earned what I need for the year...what do I want to do now?"
Even if I were in that position (and I doubt I'll ever be that lucky), I don't think I'd take the rest of the year for world travel. I have too many attachments here and I don't like the idea of professionally dong nothing for a year while I travel around the world. Plus, I hate long plane rides. That said, I love the idea of being able to do it, especially in light of life's unpredictability. What if something happened that put me in a position of being unable to earn income for a year? Or what it it happened to someone I cared about? How much better would you sleep at night knowing that you've made enough to live on for March 1, so even if something happened that prevented you from earning money, it wouldn't matter for nine months because you'd covered your expenses for the year? Furthermore, there's a lot of concern about retirement nowadays. If you work from 22 to 65 and succeed in living on half your income for those years 43 years and saving the other half, that would mean that, even without interest, you'd have saved enough to live on for another 40 years. (Granted, it's a huge over-simplification, but the fact still stands that every dollar you don't spend now is one you can spend later).
And, honestly, even though Everyday Minimalist is making a very good income, I doubt it was easy for her to accomplish this. It's just as easy to get caught up in the cycle of "more, more, more," whether you're earning $6,000, $60,000, or $600,000 per year. To do it, someone would absolutely have to learn to really weigh the value of everything they buy and learn to pass on things that you sort of want and can easily afford. I don't think it means being deprived or giving up all your worldly possessions, but it definitely means a new mindset.
There's also the issue of how much can you really reduce your expenses. Some things can go pretty easily, like the whole Latte Factor. If you're buying a $3 drink from Starbucks on the way to work every day and you work five days a week, fifty weeks per year, then you're spending $750 a year. If you're buying one bottle of $1.25 soda or water from the vending machine at work, then you're spending another $312.50. Cut those two out and you're saving $1,000 per year. Other expenses aren't so easy to get rid of. Everyone needs a place to live, electricity, food, basic medical care, and, in most places, gas. There are things you can do to reduce those costs, but they're always going to be there.
Of course, people go to some pretty extreme lengths to save money, like the guy who managed to eat for $1 a day for a hundred days,, but at some absolutely horrifying meals in the time of it (and also supplemented his fruit supply by eating fruit that squirrels discarded after a bite). It works for him, I guess, but what's the point? And if you truly value that latte on the way to work or grabbing a soda from the vending machine in the afternoon, then by all means, go for it. As much as I support the idea of saving for the future, it seems ridiculous to do so at the cost of any enjoyment of the present.
Still, I think that it's important to balance enjoying the present with planning for the future. No one wants to give up every single pleasure in their youth with the intention of enjoying it all when they retire, only to be hit by a truck as they're leaving work for the last time, but neither doesn't anyone want to never deny themselves in their youth only to find themselves with nothing in their old age. That's where I like at least some of the minimalist principles, like thinking long and hard about every purchase, even the small ones). I may not ever reach the point where I can get away with working three months a year, but every dollar I don't spend thoughtlessly today is a dollar that's going to be there later on if I really need it.
Besides, if I embrace minimalism, I can have all the Apple products I want and none of them count in my list of 100 possessions!
Another topic that seems to be closely related to personal finance (at least in the blogs I'm reading) is minimalism. Very few of the blogs I read embrace "true" minimalism. If you want an entertaining (highly exaggerated and very tongue in cheek) explanation, check out this video. One thing I see frequently with minimalists is counting their possessions and occasionally posting the lists of what they own. 100 things or less seems to be a goal for a lot of people. I like having possessions and can't imagine ever limiting myself to less than 100 things, but on the other hand, I'm not sure that I need the 100 ink pens and pencils I seem to have, for example.
One thing I like about it, though, is the idea of really putting thought into what you buy. Even if you budget fairly carefully and limit the amount you can spend in frivolous categories, you're possibly only preventing yourself from spending more than you can afford, which means that you still may be buying things you don't really want or need because the money's there. This was the subject of a debate between myself and my roommate in terms of budgeting. If you limit yourself to spending X dollars on entertainment each month, what happens if you spend $50? Her opinion was that anything she didn't spend in the course of a month should go into savings. That's a good thing, I think, but I voted for at least some rollover. First, she might want an item that costs more than $100 one month. Second, I think that no rollover could possibly encourage a "use it or lose it" mentality, where she bought items that she didn't really want that much just because she had the money and wasn't' going to use it.
Weighing the value of your purchases certainly isn't a new concept. I can't remember how many times my mother asked me "Is that really worth the money you'd spend?" or dismissed something, saying "I like it, but I don't like it $xx worth." And a few years ago, when times started getting tough for everyone, I remember Suze Orman suggesting that people should try to live on half their actual income. It seemed like a good idea, but it didn't really resonate with me until I read Everyday Minimalist's announcement that she had earned enough in January-March to cover her expenses for the year and had declared 2011 "The Year of Travel." Granted, she has a relatively high income (according to her blog, $17,000-21,000 per month), so this probably isn't feasible for most people, but still... Wrap your mind around the idea of being able to say in before the year's 1/3 over "Okay, I've earned what I need for the year...what do I want to do now?"
Even if I were in that position (and I doubt I'll ever be that lucky), I don't think I'd take the rest of the year for world travel. I have too many attachments here and I don't like the idea of professionally dong nothing for a year while I travel around the world. Plus, I hate long plane rides. That said, I love the idea of being able to do it, especially in light of life's unpredictability. What if something happened that put me in a position of being unable to earn income for a year? Or what it it happened to someone I cared about? How much better would you sleep at night knowing that you've made enough to live on for March 1, so even if something happened that prevented you from earning money, it wouldn't matter for nine months because you'd covered your expenses for the year? Furthermore, there's a lot of concern about retirement nowadays. If you work from 22 to 65 and succeed in living on half your income for those years 43 years and saving the other half, that would mean that, even without interest, you'd have saved enough to live on for another 40 years. (Granted, it's a huge over-simplification, but the fact still stands that every dollar you don't spend now is one you can spend later).
And, honestly, even though Everyday Minimalist is making a very good income, I doubt it was easy for her to accomplish this. It's just as easy to get caught up in the cycle of "more, more, more," whether you're earning $6,000, $60,000, or $600,000 per year. To do it, someone would absolutely have to learn to really weigh the value of everything they buy and learn to pass on things that you sort of want and can easily afford. I don't think it means being deprived or giving up all your worldly possessions, but it definitely means a new mindset.
There's also the issue of how much can you really reduce your expenses. Some things can go pretty easily, like the whole Latte Factor. If you're buying a $3 drink from Starbucks on the way to work every day and you work five days a week, fifty weeks per year, then you're spending $750 a year. If you're buying one bottle of $1.25 soda or water from the vending machine at work, then you're spending another $312.50. Cut those two out and you're saving $1,000 per year. Other expenses aren't so easy to get rid of. Everyone needs a place to live, electricity, food, basic medical care, and, in most places, gas. There are things you can do to reduce those costs, but they're always going to be there.
Of course, people go to some pretty extreme lengths to save money, like the guy who managed to eat for $1 a day for a hundred days,, but at some absolutely horrifying meals in the time of it (and also supplemented his fruit supply by eating fruit that squirrels discarded after a bite). It works for him, I guess, but what's the point? And if you truly value that latte on the way to work or grabbing a soda from the vending machine in the afternoon, then by all means, go for it. As much as I support the idea of saving for the future, it seems ridiculous to do so at the cost of any enjoyment of the present.
Still, I think that it's important to balance enjoying the present with planning for the future. No one wants to give up every single pleasure in their youth with the intention of enjoying it all when they retire, only to be hit by a truck as they're leaving work for the last time, but neither doesn't anyone want to never deny themselves in their youth only to find themselves with nothing in their old age. That's where I like at least some of the minimalist principles, like thinking long and hard about every purchase, even the small ones). I may not ever reach the point where I can get away with working three months a year, but every dollar I don't spend thoughtlessly today is a dollar that's going to be there later on if I really need it.
Besides, if I embrace minimalism, I can have all the Apple products I want and none of them count in my list of 100 possessions!
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Make It Easy for Me to Give You My Money
I don't know if I'm in the minority for this, but for me, the initial charm of Napster circa wasn't the fact that I could suddenly get music for free. What I loved about it was the fact that, despite living in an area with limited radio variety, I had access to a wide variety of music. Before that, no matter how much someone raved over and album and told me how much I'd love that artist, it was hard to justify spending $15 for a CD I'd never heard. More than that, though, even if I was willing to take the risk or if I was familiar with the artist, my only option for getting the CD was to either special order it at a store or order it through the mail or online. And, of course, bear in mind that ordering online wasn't nearly as easy in 1999 as it is now.
Suddenly, though, I was able to download MP3s and check out the albums that people recommended to me. Granted, it was only three songs at a time and each of those songs had about a thirty minute download time, but who cares? I was able to listen to artists that I loved but most people hadn't heard of. And I'm also proud to say that, for the most part, if I liked the music, I bought the album eventually...usually when I could finally find it. (There was also the matter of rare songs that, to this day, I haven't found since.)
This is not an ode to piracy, however. Nowadays, I get my music through the proper channels. Initially through iTunes, then Amazon, and currently Rhapsody. In most cases, it's cheaper, which was the big reason I was willing to make the jump from CDs to MP3s. Saving a few dollars per album is always a good thing, plus there's the option of downloading individual songs. What I love is the convenience and variety. If I like a song, it's probably going to be available on Amazon or Rhapsody, so I can download it right away without having to find a store that carries it. (I'm starting to approach that attitude with ebooks, too, but I'm not fully converted yet.)
Unfortunately, this isn't how it works with games, movies, or television shows. It's getting better, but between availability and pricing, it still trails behind music.
Here's my major frustration: With digital music, I can go to the site of my choice, find the music I want, and easily put it on my iPod. I like the iPod for reasons other than digital music, so I didn't have to significantly change the way I listen to music. The other industries just don't seem to have that yet. Assuming they're available online at a reasonable price, I still frequently have to modify how I would watch the movie.
Netflix is moving in the right direction. I pay a flat monthly fee and, in exchange, I can watch television on my television (provided I have a device that plays Netflix). Unfortunately, Netflix's options are still somewhat limited. Watching Hulu is nice enough, but, as of now, I have to watch the shows on my computer. Hopefully, Hulu Plus will come to the 360 and PS3 soon and help fix this. As for Amazon or iTunes video rental? It's great if you have the equipment and they would be nice to fill in gaps where the content wasn't available on Netflix or Hulu, but if you don't have the equipment, then you can't watch it on television. And, call my crazy, I like my television on a television.
The problem I see is that a lack of convenience and availability might be a big factor in piracy. I'll use my experience with Breakfast at Tiffany's as an example.
I read the novella about a month ago and I wanted to finally watch the movie. Unsurprisingly, I couldn't buy it at any local stores and it wasn't available for rental at Blockbuster. It wasn't on Netflix, so no instant streaming. Until I thought of Amazon Instant Video, I thought my only option was to order it off Amazon and wait. Unfortunately, even though it was available on Amazon Instant Video and I can watch Amazon content on my Tivo, I hit a snag when I found it it would take five hours to download. And with that, my pizza and movie night with Breakfast at Tiffany's died.
The incredibly frustrating part was the knowledge that, most likely, somewhere out there I could find a copy of the movie that I could download quickly and easily. Since I have a 360, I could play certain file types on that, so I could watch it on an actual television instead of a computer.
Now, piracy is a complicated issue and I'm not implying for one moment that if it was just easier to get things, piracy would stop. It wouldn't. However, the fight against online piracy has been going on since at least 2000 and, frankly, while I wouldn't say that Hollywood, the music industry, and the game industry are losing, I can't say that they're winning. They go after one service or site, another pops up.
That said, when it's easier to get an illegal copy of the item than it is to pay for it, that can't help their cause. They have to understand how people are using their products and accommodate that. I want to play music on my iPod, watch movies and shows on my television, and play games on my consoles. And, frankly, I've been spoiled by things like iTunes, Netflix, Rhapsody, and Hulu. I'm willing to pay for the content, but I'm not willing to go out of my way to get it. I want to be able to come home and be able to choose my movie after I've settled down on the couch. I don't want to have to plan ahead and go out of my way to get it. And I'm willing to bet a lot of other people feel the same way.
In short, if Hollywood wants to fight piracy, they at least have to make it as easy to buy the product legitimately as it is to pirate it. Doing so won't stop piracy, but I'm fairly sure that failing to do so means Hollywood is behind before the race even starts.
Suddenly, though, I was able to download MP3s and check out the albums that people recommended to me. Granted, it was only three songs at a time and each of those songs had about a thirty minute download time, but who cares? I was able to listen to artists that I loved but most people hadn't heard of. And I'm also proud to say that, for the most part, if I liked the music, I bought the album eventually...usually when I could finally find it. (There was also the matter of rare songs that, to this day, I haven't found since.)
This is not an ode to piracy, however. Nowadays, I get my music through the proper channels. Initially through iTunes, then Amazon, and currently Rhapsody. In most cases, it's cheaper, which was the big reason I was willing to make the jump from CDs to MP3s. Saving a few dollars per album is always a good thing, plus there's the option of downloading individual songs. What I love is the convenience and variety. If I like a song, it's probably going to be available on Amazon or Rhapsody, so I can download it right away without having to find a store that carries it. (I'm starting to approach that attitude with ebooks, too, but I'm not fully converted yet.)
Unfortunately, this isn't how it works with games, movies, or television shows. It's getting better, but between availability and pricing, it still trails behind music.
Here's my major frustration: With digital music, I can go to the site of my choice, find the music I want, and easily put it on my iPod. I like the iPod for reasons other than digital music, so I didn't have to significantly change the way I listen to music. The other industries just don't seem to have that yet. Assuming they're available online at a reasonable price, I still frequently have to modify how I would watch the movie.
Netflix is moving in the right direction. I pay a flat monthly fee and, in exchange, I can watch television on my television (provided I have a device that plays Netflix). Unfortunately, Netflix's options are still somewhat limited. Watching Hulu is nice enough, but, as of now, I have to watch the shows on my computer. Hopefully, Hulu Plus will come to the 360 and PS3 soon and help fix this. As for Amazon or iTunes video rental? It's great if you have the equipment and they would be nice to fill in gaps where the content wasn't available on Netflix or Hulu, but if you don't have the equipment, then you can't watch it on television. And, call my crazy, I like my television on a television.
The problem I see is that a lack of convenience and availability might be a big factor in piracy. I'll use my experience with Breakfast at Tiffany's as an example.
I read the novella about a month ago and I wanted to finally watch the movie. Unsurprisingly, I couldn't buy it at any local stores and it wasn't available for rental at Blockbuster. It wasn't on Netflix, so no instant streaming. Until I thought of Amazon Instant Video, I thought my only option was to order it off Amazon and wait. Unfortunately, even though it was available on Amazon Instant Video and I can watch Amazon content on my Tivo, I hit a snag when I found it it would take five hours to download. And with that, my pizza and movie night with Breakfast at Tiffany's died.
The incredibly frustrating part was the knowledge that, most likely, somewhere out there I could find a copy of the movie that I could download quickly and easily. Since I have a 360, I could play certain file types on that, so I could watch it on an actual television instead of a computer.
Now, piracy is a complicated issue and I'm not implying for one moment that if it was just easier to get things, piracy would stop. It wouldn't. However, the fight against online piracy has been going on since at least 2000 and, frankly, while I wouldn't say that Hollywood, the music industry, and the game industry are losing, I can't say that they're winning. They go after one service or site, another pops up.
That said, when it's easier to get an illegal copy of the item than it is to pay for it, that can't help their cause. They have to understand how people are using their products and accommodate that. I want to play music on my iPod, watch movies and shows on my television, and play games on my consoles. And, frankly, I've been spoiled by things like iTunes, Netflix, Rhapsody, and Hulu. I'm willing to pay for the content, but I'm not willing to go out of my way to get it. I want to be able to come home and be able to choose my movie after I've settled down on the couch. I don't want to have to plan ahead and go out of my way to get it. And I'm willing to bet a lot of other people feel the same way.
In short, if Hollywood wants to fight piracy, they at least have to make it as easy to buy the product legitimately as it is to pirate it. Doing so won't stop piracy, but I'm fairly sure that failing to do so means Hollywood is behind before the race even starts.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
The iPad and the Budding News Junkie
It's also amazing how a different method of delivery can drastically change someone's behavior regarding news. Case in point, me.
Up until recently, I've kept up with the news well enough, but it was always fairly passively. I would stop to listen to the story running on a 24 hour news channel or click on whatever stories interested me when I checked my email or visited a search page. About a year ago, I started using Twitter to follow news or other feeds that interested me, mainly legal related. That wasn't bad, but it was a bit of a pain scrolling through several hours worth of posts and clicking on the links that interested me. (I never said I wasn't lazy.)
Next I tried Google Reader. It's great for a lot of reasons, including the ability to star and share interesting posts as well as the "sort by magic" feature that filters everything based on past history. Still, it's a lot of work. I suppose I could add everything into one category and read it, but then it's a jumbled mess and I find myself always trying to wade through hundreds or thousands of posts to get to the ones that interest me. I've tried to organize everything by category and to prune my Reader frequently and that helps a lot, but it still feels like a bit of a chore.
Enter the iPad. It's more flexible for reading and I find myself using it instead of my laptop more and more often. Unfortunately, reading Google Reader through the iPad web browser worked fairly well, but it was much easier to use on a computer. Reeder was recommended frequently, but at $4.99, it seemed to be a waste of money when Google Reader worked well enough on the iPad and the computer was always a viable option. (On a side note, this is why app developers need to offer free trials of their products. I have no problem with paying for an app that provides a service that I can't get for free or improves upon the free service, but I need to know that the service is worth the money. Had Reeder offered a free trial, I might be using it now.)
Then I discovered Flipboard. It was my favorite price, which is free, so I downloaded it and promptly forgot about it. I started using it again about a week ago, though, and I'm fairly happy with it. You can add your Google Reader account, your Facebook account, and your Twitter account, or you can just use pre-selected feeds like News, Art, Fliptech. You can also add individual blogs or Twitter accounts. What I like most about it is that it shows up as a magazine-like layout. The Twitter section doesn't just show Tweets, it also displays linked articles or photos in some cases. If it just shows a Tweet, I can easily click it and view the whole article. Same with Facebook posts. When my FB friends share a link, I see the entire article or video...or at least a decent teaser. It makes it a lot easier to scan through them to see what interests me the most. I like the Google Reader selection for the same reason, though as far as I can tell, flipping through the headlines doesn't mark them as read. I like the fact that I'm still able to star items or add things to my shared items, but I miss being able to bookmark things with Diigo. Still, it works and I'm more or less happy with it.
I'm also experimenting with Zite, which is about a week old. Supposedly, you can add your Google Reader and Twitter and it gives content based on that. It also claims to learn from your reading habits and give you more of the types of stories that interest you. The good thing about this is that it allows you to get information from sources you wouldn't normally read, which is always a good thing.
I'm not impressed, though. It wasn't bad enough to make me give up on it totally, but it also wasn't good enough to make me give up on Flipboard. First, despite following 40 different Twitter feeds and having 228 subscriptions on Google Reader, Zite wasn't able to generate automatic content for me so I had to add my own. Not a huge problem, but definitely not living up to the hype. Second, it's buggy in a couple of ways. The most noticeable was extremely slow loading times and, at one point, a message saying that it couldn't access content because of too many users. In most cases, it wasn't a huge wait, but I left behind waiting five to ten seconds for a page of text and one picture to load when I gave up dial up. It also crashed a couple of times and I couldn't get linked videos to play. Also, if I clicked on a link to another website or even another story on the site I was reading, it opened Safari. That meant that when I was finished, I had to reopen Zite, wait for it to load, go back to the section I was reading, and start again. I didn't have this problem in Flipboard. Finally, a few things were out of place on categories. It didn't stand out until I got to the humor section and found a story about a tiger killing a lion in a zoo. This wasn't by the Onion and it didn't reference Charlie Sheen, so either their categories are glitchy or someone has a really, really sick sense of humor.
All in all, I do see myself using the iPad more and more for news. I can't see myself paying subscription content, though that might change. What I want is a nice little iPad app that will let me manage all my Google Reader and Twitter content, share or bookmark as needed, and let me easily leaf through all the content. Oh, and introducing new content? It's a positive, but not a requirement. And since I plan to stick with a wifi only iPad, the ability to periodically refresh and store content for offline browsing would be great, too.
Up until recently, I've kept up with the news well enough, but it was always fairly passively. I would stop to listen to the story running on a 24 hour news channel or click on whatever stories interested me when I checked my email or visited a search page. About a year ago, I started using Twitter to follow news or other feeds that interested me, mainly legal related. That wasn't bad, but it was a bit of a pain scrolling through several hours worth of posts and clicking on the links that interested me. (I never said I wasn't lazy.)
Next I tried Google Reader. It's great for a lot of reasons, including the ability to star and share interesting posts as well as the "sort by magic" feature that filters everything based on past history. Still, it's a lot of work. I suppose I could add everything into one category and read it, but then it's a jumbled mess and I find myself always trying to wade through hundreds or thousands of posts to get to the ones that interest me. I've tried to organize everything by category and to prune my Reader frequently and that helps a lot, but it still feels like a bit of a chore.
Enter the iPad. It's more flexible for reading and I find myself using it instead of my laptop more and more often. Unfortunately, reading Google Reader through the iPad web browser worked fairly well, but it was much easier to use on a computer. Reeder was recommended frequently, but at $4.99, it seemed to be a waste of money when Google Reader worked well enough on the iPad and the computer was always a viable option. (On a side note, this is why app developers need to offer free trials of their products. I have no problem with paying for an app that provides a service that I can't get for free or improves upon the free service, but I need to know that the service is worth the money. Had Reeder offered a free trial, I might be using it now.)
Then I discovered Flipboard. It was my favorite price, which is free, so I downloaded it and promptly forgot about it. I started using it again about a week ago, though, and I'm fairly happy with it. You can add your Google Reader account, your Facebook account, and your Twitter account, or you can just use pre-selected feeds like News, Art, Fliptech. You can also add individual blogs or Twitter accounts. What I like most about it is that it shows up as a magazine-like layout. The Twitter section doesn't just show Tweets, it also displays linked articles or photos in some cases. If it just shows a Tweet, I can easily click it and view the whole article. Same with Facebook posts. When my FB friends share a link, I see the entire article or video...or at least a decent teaser. It makes it a lot easier to scan through them to see what interests me the most. I like the Google Reader selection for the same reason, though as far as I can tell, flipping through the headlines doesn't mark them as read. I like the fact that I'm still able to star items or add things to my shared items, but I miss being able to bookmark things with Diigo. Still, it works and I'm more or less happy with it.
I'm also experimenting with Zite, which is about a week old. Supposedly, you can add your Google Reader and Twitter and it gives content based on that. It also claims to learn from your reading habits and give you more of the types of stories that interest you. The good thing about this is that it allows you to get information from sources you wouldn't normally read, which is always a good thing.
I'm not impressed, though. It wasn't bad enough to make me give up on it totally, but it also wasn't good enough to make me give up on Flipboard. First, despite following 40 different Twitter feeds and having 228 subscriptions on Google Reader, Zite wasn't able to generate automatic content for me so I had to add my own. Not a huge problem, but definitely not living up to the hype. Second, it's buggy in a couple of ways. The most noticeable was extremely slow loading times and, at one point, a message saying that it couldn't access content because of too many users. In most cases, it wasn't a huge wait, but I left behind waiting five to ten seconds for a page of text and one picture to load when I gave up dial up. It also crashed a couple of times and I couldn't get linked videos to play. Also, if I clicked on a link to another website or even another story on the site I was reading, it opened Safari. That meant that when I was finished, I had to reopen Zite, wait for it to load, go back to the section I was reading, and start again. I didn't have this problem in Flipboard. Finally, a few things were out of place on categories. It didn't stand out until I got to the humor section and found a story about a tiger killing a lion in a zoo. This wasn't by the Onion and it didn't reference Charlie Sheen, so either their categories are glitchy or someone has a really, really sick sense of humor.
All in all, I do see myself using the iPad more and more for news. I can't see myself paying subscription content, though that might change. What I want is a nice little iPad app that will let me manage all my Google Reader and Twitter content, share or bookmark as needed, and let me easily leaf through all the content. Oh, and introducing new content? It's a positive, but not a requirement. And since I plan to stick with a wifi only iPad, the ability to periodically refresh and store content for offline browsing would be great, too.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Why AT&T Is Making a Strong Case for a Verizon iPhone
I'll admit it, I'm lazy. That's pretty much why I'm with AT&T, despite never actually choosing AT&T. It was pretty simple: Years ago, for whatever reason, my parents signed up with CellularOne and came home with shiny clunky new cell phone for me, too. No complaints. I stuck with CellularOne who was then bought out by Cingular...which then turned into AT&T.
Over the years, everything has been a bit of a pain. The first problem occurred when making a phone call from my driveway (which was about half a mile from the store where I bought my phone) resulted in a roaming charge. That became less of an issue when companies stopped hitting you with roaming charges. After that, the issue became dropped calls. (Interestingly enough, the dropped calls didn't become a major problem until AFTER AT&T started advertising themselves at the network with the fewest dropped calls.) It was so bad people with whom I had frequent phone conversations were able to track where I was based on when calls would drop and I started warning people when the call was going to drop.
Lately, the issue has been 3G coverage. This didn't matter to me until a couple of years ago, when I finally decided to upgrade to a smartphone. I had originally decided on an iPhone, but decided against it when I realized that AT&T had no 3G coverage where my parents live (and where I spend a lot of time). Look at a map of AT&T's 3G coverage sometime...it's pretty limited. Did I say pretty? I mean extremely. And those ads that AT&T keeps running about how the iPhone users can talk and browse only on AT&T's network? That's AT&T's 3G network. If you're using Edge, talking and browsing isn't an option.
In the spirit of fairness, apparently AT&T's 3G is faster than Verizon's...where you can get it.
I finally chose a Blackberry Pearl which I then upgraded about a year later to a Blackberry Bold. I was able to get the Blackberry cheaper and decided that I refused to get an iPhone as long as it was exclusive to AT&T.
The other big argument for AT&T was their free mobile to mobile calling. Since the people I talked to the most on the phone also had AT&T, there was a very strong disincentive for switching carriers. If I switched carriers, phone calls to my friends would start eating up my minutes and their minutes....and probably wouldn't make me very popular. However, my phone habits have changed enough that this isn't the issue it was a year ago.
So, basically, I don't have a lot of incentive to stick it out with AT&T except for the early termination fee (I'm about four months into a two year contract on my phone). And since my bill is so high ($85 for one line, not including taxes), I'm willing to bet that my savings with another company would offset the ETF.
Fast forward to now and everyone is excited about the Verizon iPhone. My reaction? I can't decide whether to upgrade to an iPhone (I like the features) or get rid of a smartphone altogether. It's not quite as ridiculous as it sounds, since I have a 4G iPod Touch. (You know, the one Steve Jobs referred to as an "iPhone without a contract?") More and more places have free wifi now, so lately I've seriously considered switching to an iPod Touch and a regular phone. Another option my roommate and I have kicked around has been getting MiFi, especially since the iPad is now in the picture.
I've decided to wait it out until this summer, since there's a good chance that Apple will release a new model then. In the meantime, I'm getting more and more annoyed with AT&T's policy of rewarding only iPhone customer loyalty and ONLY iPhone customers. They seem to be confused about the fact that they're in danger of losing non-iPhone customers to Verizon.
For instance, when I checked Google Reader, I found this story about how AT&T is now offering iPhone customers 1000 free "loyalty" minutes. I don't need the minutes. I have 3199 as of last billing cycle and 308 minutes expired last month. The fact that AT&T has also started offering some iPhone users unlimited data plans again doesn't affect me either, since I never lost my unlimited plan. But the fact that AT&T is exclusively wooing iPhone users to keep them from switching, while ignoring other smartphone users who are paying just as much? I don't like it.
It's not enough to make me decide to leave AT&T right now, but it's definitely yet another little thing that's slowly tipping the scale towards....well, anyone but AT&T.
Over the years, everything has been a bit of a pain. The first problem occurred when making a phone call from my driveway (which was about half a mile from the store where I bought my phone) resulted in a roaming charge. That became less of an issue when companies stopped hitting you with roaming charges. After that, the issue became dropped calls. (Interestingly enough, the dropped calls didn't become a major problem until AFTER AT&T started advertising themselves at the network with the fewest dropped calls.) It was so bad people with whom I had frequent phone conversations were able to track where I was based on when calls would drop and I started warning people when the call was going to drop.
Lately, the issue has been 3G coverage. This didn't matter to me until a couple of years ago, when I finally decided to upgrade to a smartphone. I had originally decided on an iPhone, but decided against it when I realized that AT&T had no 3G coverage where my parents live (and where I spend a lot of time). Look at a map of AT&T's 3G coverage sometime...it's pretty limited. Did I say pretty? I mean extremely. And those ads that AT&T keeps running about how the iPhone users can talk and browse only on AT&T's network? That's AT&T's 3G network. If you're using Edge, talking and browsing isn't an option.
In the spirit of fairness, apparently AT&T's 3G is faster than Verizon's...where you can get it.
I finally chose a Blackberry Pearl which I then upgraded about a year later to a Blackberry Bold. I was able to get the Blackberry cheaper and decided that I refused to get an iPhone as long as it was exclusive to AT&T.
The other big argument for AT&T was their free mobile to mobile calling. Since the people I talked to the most on the phone also had AT&T, there was a very strong disincentive for switching carriers. If I switched carriers, phone calls to my friends would start eating up my minutes and their minutes....and probably wouldn't make me very popular. However, my phone habits have changed enough that this isn't the issue it was a year ago.
So, basically, I don't have a lot of incentive to stick it out with AT&T except for the early termination fee (I'm about four months into a two year contract on my phone). And since my bill is so high ($85 for one line, not including taxes), I'm willing to bet that my savings with another company would offset the ETF.
Fast forward to now and everyone is excited about the Verizon iPhone. My reaction? I can't decide whether to upgrade to an iPhone (I like the features) or get rid of a smartphone altogether. It's not quite as ridiculous as it sounds, since I have a 4G iPod Touch. (You know, the one Steve Jobs referred to as an "iPhone without a contract?") More and more places have free wifi now, so lately I've seriously considered switching to an iPod Touch and a regular phone. Another option my roommate and I have kicked around has been getting MiFi, especially since the iPad is now in the picture.
I've decided to wait it out until this summer, since there's a good chance that Apple will release a new model then. In the meantime, I'm getting more and more annoyed with AT&T's policy of rewarding only iPhone customer loyalty and ONLY iPhone customers. They seem to be confused about the fact that they're in danger of losing non-iPhone customers to Verizon.
For instance, when I checked Google Reader, I found this story about how AT&T is now offering iPhone customers 1000 free "loyalty" minutes. I don't need the minutes. I have 3199 as of last billing cycle and 308 minutes expired last month. The fact that AT&T has also started offering some iPhone users unlimited data plans again doesn't affect me either, since I never lost my unlimited plan. But the fact that AT&T is exclusively wooing iPhone users to keep them from switching, while ignoring other smartphone users who are paying just as much? I don't like it.
It's not enough to make me decide to leave AT&T right now, but it's definitely yet another little thing that's slowly tipping the scale towards....well, anyone but AT&T.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)