Posted 11/20/2008 at 08:34:38pm

Microsoft has a genuinely good product.  Really--it's extremely competent, functional, and has some features that make it a very compelling offer.  However, it has consistently failed in one key area:  MS produces very solid, dependable Zunes that exude none of the sexiness of competing Apple products.  Worse, Microsoft can't even incorporate items from it's extensive programming background into the Zune so that it offers real value to the end user.

The concept Microsoft misses is called cross-over.  I picked up an iPod Touch; this despite the fact that I detest everything about the way Apple uses itself to presume what *I* want, what is good for ease of use (come on, a standard USB connection is hardly asking them to move mountains).  However, I like having a calendar on me, some basic office-like apps hovering around--just in case.  Apple provides me with software that is like a rope around my neck, not letting me do even the simplest tasks without reminding me that Steve Jobs can now use me as his bitch.  Microsoft has software libraries--hell, entire buildings of software--that could be incorporated, used to sync my life not just to a single, off the shelf player but to everything else Microsoft can offer.

And yeah, the sexy part hurts MS a lot.  I leave my iPod on my desk at work, and it just looks sexy, even when it's off.  The zune looks utilitarian, almost like a dinosaur with manual buttons, and a design that is certainly effective, just not interesting.  No one wants to pick up a zune going 'Wow, what is this?'--but they do with competing Apple products.  Until Microsoft does what it does well--putting MS into every nook and cranny while making the electronic device capable of really serving a variety of needs... well, it's just another mp3 player on the market.  It's not even competition for Apple, it's merely another faceless competitor that 10 years from now will never, ever be remembered.

Posted 11/19/2008 at 07:40:09pm

Microsoft doesn't need to buy out Yahoo! at the moment--they can let Yahoo waste all its cash trying to salvage itself (and failing to grasp the reality of their situation) and then purchase them piecemeal.  MS can eat Yahoo a little bit at a time rather then spend their cash on inflated prices for worthless gains.

In the meantime, what Yahoo needs to do (why aren't they hiring me?) is to identify monetary gains from new avenues outside of the stomping grounds of Google.  There's still a lot to go after, especially some truly delicious stuff attached to government agencies, but Yahoo needs to stop trying to be Google, and regain it's focus.  If they can makeover the mess they created for themselves, they won't need to worry about a takeover.

Posted 11/13/2008 at 01:43:24pm

Do the world a favor for a change and beat down McColo when they resurface (beacuse unfortunately, these asses always resurface).

Posted 11/10/2008 at 07:29:23pm

This will only be implemented on the highest-end sku from the folks in Washington State.

It will cost $500 for that version.

Posted 11/07/2008 at 12:58:59pm

Following a series of unmitigated financial disasters on my end, it appears that I'll barely be able to put together a low-end rig at this point, despite what I want.

Currently, the only solution I have is whoring my body to old ladies for quarters, and hopefully I will have enough money by Easter to afford a Q6600.  Of course, if I could find something of value to sell...

Posted 11/06/2008 at 09:59:46am

This is the answer to a question nobody ever thought was worth asking.  Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Posted 11/06/2008 at 09:59:32am

This is the answer to a question nobody ever thought was worth asking.  Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Posted 11/05/2008 at 06:43:55am

Couldn't this be considered as EA allowing people to essentially hack their game?  I mean, from a legal standpoint, that's essentially what they have told people to do...

Posted 11/04/2008 at 02:15:12pm

Even the electric company is required to have a device that allows us to see the amount of usage for a given period of time.  If AT&T cannot deliver such a device--then the customer cannot be expected to measure the bandwith recorded by AT&T for billing purposes.

I believe the situation can be made worse for AT&T, as well.  A person could reasonably ask for an estimate--for example, if I want to go to a particular website, I should first receive an approximate estimate of the bandwith such a site would take on my system.  It is not unreasonable as a customer to get that.  And--if the estimate is wildly inaccurate--AT&T would again be forced to capitulate to the customer in a billing dispute.

I think AT&T should do this specifically so it can go to court.  Currently this is so arbibrary that a customer could easily dispute it.  I wonder if the cost of a class-action lawsuit from disgruntled customers is worth the investment by AT&T?

Posted 11/03/2008 at 08:45:56pm

It looks very pretty, but I've been hurt by pretty OS's before.