-
LinkedIn
-
Recently The New York Times ran an article about how Macs aren’t safer than Windows machines, just are a smaller target. I jumped out of my seat, shrugged my shoulders, lifted up my hands, relaxed my wrists, and condescendingly said, “Duh!” This was followed by thanking NYT for stating the obvious.
Last month, March 2009, Windows machines accounted for 88.14% of online activity, Mac accounted for 9.77%, and Linux was 0.90%. Mildly humorous is the IPhone was 0.49% of web activity, more than half of the Linux activity. Any hoot, seeing as how Macs account for less than 1/9th of the activity that Windows produces, what reason would a virus developer have for developing a virus? If he or she wanted to affect the most machines then he or she would attack Windows. The only reason someone would target Mac is if they had an obsessive hatred for Macs or an ex-girl(boy)friend owned a Mac. Either way, the reason Macs are safer is because of the lack of viruses for them. Using that reasoning to say anything is safer would make Linux look more locked down than Fort Knox.
However, there has been a trend going that Mac users need to be wary of. The activity from Windows’ machines has dropped 3% and Mac has increased 2% since May 2008. Why does this matter to Mac users? Well, with a greater market, and the pompous attitude Mac users have about Macs being safer, Macs are seeming more appealing to Hackers. But luckily for Mac, it is built from a Unix foundation, right?
According to the NYT article Mac OSX had 26 vulnerabilities compared to Vista’s 27. Also, at the 2009 PWN2Own contest, the Macbook fell to a security flaw within seconds of the contest’s start. Sure, being a PC owner I may have said, “Take that hipsters!” More importantly, and pertaining to my next point, I was guilty of being a smug jerk about the NYT article when I first read it. Now I can’t help but feel like everything I’ve known about computing has crumbled. I thought Unix machines were virtually impossible to penetrate. When I think about it, that simple fact is devastating news. Macs are Unix based, so do their vulnerabilities reflect vulnerabilities in Unix, or has Macintosh gotten that lazy, due to the lack of viruses, when writing their OS? What does that say about Linux? Is Linux only so secure because it represents less than 0.9% of the market?
Yikes, I feel like I don’t know anything anymore.
As for having anti-virus software on your Mac, I wouldn’t worry about it yet. Again, there isn’t enough Mac viruses out there right now to justify paying $49.99+ on a software package. As long as you keep your computer up to date with the updates Mac releases, then you should be alright, for now.
-
Taking an audience measurement course has only confirmed the inanity of the current cable and broadcast advertising environment. Just like Facebook’s response to Twitter, new technology has made the advertisers overreact. DVRs are not destroying the advertising industry; they are just misunderstood. The advertisers’ response has gone directly to apocalyptic fear over simple curiosity. In reality, DVR users are more likely to retain more information from a commercial than non-users. Also, it doesn’t help that Nielson has been broken for years, and yet they’ve been the crutch that’s held up the industry.
Whoa, back the bus up! DVR users can fast-forward through ads, so how can they retain more information?
Good question, self. Before I get into the exacts, I have to admit, and if you don’t know this by now then I am speechless, statistics can and often are manipulated to say whatever the gatherer wants to say. According to the Journal of Advertising (Spring 2008 issue, pages 143-149, written by Kenneth C. Wilbur) DVR users retain brand names 20% more often than non-users. Further statistics, 68% of DVR users skip commercials while 67% of nonusers avoid them through reading a book, leaving the room, or having a conversation: nonusers win. But, stations see a 21.5% audience loss over commercial breaks and 15% of DVR users always remember the commercials they skipped, and 52% sometimes do: DVR users win.
Why?
Well Kenneth (reminds me of 30 Rock everytime) contributes it to viewers trying to make sure they do not start fast forwarding through their show, so their eyes tend to be hooked to the screen. Again, statistics can be manipulated, but I’d like to think an advertising journal would try to skew the statistics against DVRs instead of trying to convince advertisers that DVRs could be a good thing.
Why does that matter?
Well self, it matters because Nielson, in response to DVRs, began recording their ratings as “Live”, “Live plus same day”, and “Live plus seven days.” Just in case these categories aren’t self-explanatory we’ll play the matching game: watched the show on it’s first run, watched a recording of the show within the same 24 period, and watched the show within 7 days of it’s first run. Advertisers, because they are so certain their advertisements are useless once they hit DVR find everything but the “Live” rating as useless data. This hugely affects a show like Lost which may see a 6.3 “Live” rating and a 7.3 “Live +7” rating, that’s a difference of a rating point. Many cable stations would LOVE to have one rating point. That last statement was meant to emphasize the importance of that one point.
Moving on, without even getting into how VCRs were more of a threat.
Thank you self, I didn’t feel like getting into that.
No problem self, I didn’t feel like hearing about. I kind of like hearing about things that are broken, like my soul.
Well…that is awkward. Anyway, yes, Neilson is broken anyway, so it isn’t like the ratings that advertiser’s have been receiving mattered anyway. First of all, rating are based on who was watching in a 15 minute period, and to be counted as watching, a viewer only needs to be watching a show for 8 minutes. Assuming that there is more than 32 minutes worth of show in an hour (I’d like to believe that) then that rating should be useless to an advertiser. The viewer can simply watch 8 minutes, out of every 15, of a program, avoid all of the commercials, and still will be counted in the ratings that stations’ use to charge advertisers. This isn’t a straight 8 minutes either. If I were to watch a station and change the channel, for one second, every two seconds, that would count me as watching the show for 10 out of the possible 15 minutes, and thus I’d be counted towards the ratings.
Our nation is full of people that like to sabotage things for laughter, rather that or it just so happens that everyone I meet is a (insert noun here). One way Neilson collects data is through meters installed to a viewer’s cable or TV, if they do not have cable. If I were ever asked to have one of these meters installed, I’d say yes in a heartbeat. Then, while it was installed I’d disregard my electric bill for a month and leave the TV on 24/7. I’d leave it tuned into something like C-SPAN, or PBS (because I genuinely enjoy their news). I would purposely skew their statistics just because they gave me the ability to. Would you? How many other people do you think would?
Then again, the more that I think about it, maybe advertiser’s are just using DVRs as an excuse to negotiate lower rates, that’s a possibility? They could be turning a blind eye to the facts to save some cash.
-
Once again the news comes from NAB’s coverage of The 2009 Cable Show, but what else can be expected when all of cable’s bigwigs are gathered in one place. I am actually surprised Ted Turner hasn’t already started a game of real life Clue.
Anyway, the CEO of the Walt Disney Co., Robert Iger, has confirmed some of the main points that I have said on this blog about the future of the industry. I figured I’d go through what he said, compare it to what I said in my posts, and accuse him of reading my blog (I can dream that I have at least one steady reader).
I said: People are going to look at the Internet like they look at cable, they are paying for a service, so they feel like they should get all that this service should offer. If they can’t get these online streams for free, like they do now, then some may try to find alternatives, Independent sources, or worse yet for the cable company, some will try to pirate the shows.
He said: “…preventing people from watching any shows online, unless they subscribe to some multi-channel service could be viewed as both anti-consumer, and anti-technology, and would be something we would find difficult to embrace.”Here he agrees with the idea of forcing people to pay for what they currently get for free online will backlash on the the industry. He puts it as giving them the image of being “anti-consumer” and “anti-technology.” I simply said people will find alternate sources to get their entertainment.
I said: Zattoo is a…service that allows you to watch cable channels over the Internet. All you have to do is download their software and you get access to a variety of channels.
He said: “With authentication in place, streaming full networks online would be an interesting and potentially compelling feature for consumers, and we are certainly open to exploring that possibility.”He should really read my blog, because Zattoo might be him the answer he needs. For most of that blog post I talk about the need to start streaming networks online and here he is admitting that idea intrigues his curiosity.
I said: Instead, the user can do something I can already do with my laptop, except I can also leave my house with my laptop and watch the program then, but I guess they need to worry more about piracy than giving their customers that kind of convenience.
He said: he was open to the Anywhere, Anytime Any device concept of making content available over multiple devices, including the computer, but said that authentication was key to the strategy.Maybe I am once again grasping for straws, but I see the camparissons. I was referring to the Tru2way DVR that allows viewers to see the same recording on two different TVs in the same house. The point that can be drawn from that statement is the cable industry needs to make taking your programs with you were you go. Iger seems to agree with this notion, and is open to the idea. The only problem with authentication is, how will it react if I were to move a file from my laptop to my desktop. It it will react the way I think, thanks to knowing about DRM issues people have had, that would not be convenient.
-
We are a mere 1/4 of the way through 2009 which means we haven’t hit the two main movie release times of the year, Summer and Christmas. After learning that there will be a Sherlock Holmes movie locked in for this year I decided to compose a list of movies that I am most interested in seeing. Seeing as how my memory is not the best, there are probably many more that I am forgetting about. Regardless, it seems like this year may shape up very well.
Sherlock Holmes
This iteration of Sherlock Holmes will be directed by Guy Ritchie (Snatch and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels) which already generates some interest for me. It will star Robert Downey Jr. as Sherlock Holmes, I don’t really know how I feel about that. I am not questioning his acting, I am just afraid of what he will turn Sherlock into. Dr. Watson will be played by Jude Law, which is fantastic. I think Jude Law is a good actor and I can certainly picture him playing a character who (almost) matches wits with a legend like Sherlock Holmes. I am also interested in seeing how Downey Jr. and Law react on screen, I can picture a promising dichotomy between the two.One thing that has me fearful for the movie is Ritchie is going to be directing Sherlock Holmes as wisecracking, saucy, and a womanizer. Now, it has been awhile since the last time I’ve ran into a Sherlock Holmes story, but I remember him being a bit cluster-minded and was only interested in those who he felt matched his intellect, even when it came to his women. But if that is the direction Ritchie wants to take Holmes that that is his prerogative, I’ll still see the movie. Besides, Downey Jr. would be a great match if Holmes is indulgent. I am already humoring myself thinking about Jude Law outwitting a drunk Robert Downey Jr.
Where the Wild Things Are
All I know is every time I watch the trailer for this movie I can’t help but smile. The music is probably one of the best songs they could have picked and is by The Arcade Fire. The entire movie seems like childhood nostalgia, between being based on the book, the monsters that are reminiscent of muppets, and even the concept of a child imagining a world of his own is something I am sure everyone can relate to. I am really hoping to go into this movie and remember what it was like to be that young and carefree again (even though I am only 22). I wish I can say more about this movie, but I feel I have said everything that needed to be said.GI Joe
Judging from the cast this movie can be very campy, it can be awesome, or it can outright suck, so it basically tells us nothing. It seems to be casted very well, with the exception of Marlon Wayans. Everyone else I am more than satisfied with, most of the cast members are not celebrities, but still have held notable roles (Dennis Quaid, Ray Park, Rachel Nichols). But when it comes to Wayans, I am not so sure anymore, it might try to be funny, and GI Joe wasn’t meant to be funny. Sure, a couple of jokes here and there would be fine, but now I am just scared of it trying too hard to meet its own expectations, whatever they are.One cool aspect is they are setting the movie a few years into the future as to not disenfranchise an international audience that is weary of America’s actions abroad. Also, it they will be more of an operative team than special forces. Again, this movie could go either way, still doesn’t mean I am not interested in checking it out.
The Wolfman
It is a remake of a 1950s film with the same title and it stars Benicio Del Toro - sold! I find Del Toro to be a magnificent actor, whom I want to see every movie he is in. Also, I have a strange affinity to movies with werewolves in them, might have something to do with being told, in high school, that I reminded people of a werewolf. Maybe it is in my blood, maybe you should watch out during the next full moon, maybe I should get back to the movie. Del Toro plays a man who returns home after the mysterious death of his brother and discovers the town is full of strange disappearances. Like any logical man he sets off to find his brother’s killer. Plot seems to fall kind of flat, it is based off a 1950s movie, but again, my interest lies in werewolves and Benicio Del Toro.Inglorious Basterds
Did you like Freaks and Geeks? Of course you did, well Sam Levine (Neal) is in this movie. How about The Office? Well, actor/producer B.J. Novak (Ryan) is also in this movie. Samuel L. Jackson will narrate the movie under Quentin Tarrantino’s direction. It will be about a group of Jewish-American soldiers who are dropped into Nazi occupied France to slaughter and scalp “the German.” Why scalp? Well, to quote Brad Pitt’s character, “I want my scalps.” He is a man who knows what he wants and he wants German scalps. Do you see all of the names I dropped? Did you notice it is a Quentin Tarrantino film about a group of soldiers slaughtering Nazi’s. How can this movie not be good?Star Trek
I really liked Star Trek growing up, and even though I wasn’t a Trekkie I still really respect it. Also, I am a huge fan of Lost and I really enjoyed Cloverfeild and since JJ Abrams is also working on this movie I feel like it can’t be horrible. I have confidence in Abrams, though I have never seen Fringe, and he seems like someone who knows what he is doing. I will certainly check this movie out when it comes out.Caroline
I feel like there isn’t much I can say about this. The main reason I want to see it is because it is an adaptation of a Neil Gaiman book who is certainly up there as one of my favorite comic book writers. Henry Selick (directed/produced Nightmare Before Christmas and James and the Giant Peach) adapted it and will direct and produce it. Is it going to have Hot Topic written all over it? Definitely! That doesn’t mean I am not interested in seeing it, I owe it to Gaiman, he is a great writer. -
Much of what you are about to read is going to be my regurgitation of the information I consumed from reading the Multichannel News coverage of The 2009 Cable Show. The keyword is much, and not all, but I do have to confess, if you are interested in keeping up with the Media Industry, Multichannel News and NAB365 have been doing a phenomenal job of covering the media convergence, and to a lesser extent, The New York Times technology section has been doing a decent job.
Anyway, The 2009 Cable Show, has kicked off and already many new advancements in cable have been announced. Being announced, however does not mean these advancements will see life, just that the companies that are currently in development with them and are hoping these products will be released. The conference’s keynote speaker signaled the event by saying,
“The truth is we really don’t know what the future holds … we have merely an imperfect glimpse of what a truly connected nation would look like. But it is an exciting vision, and our industry fully intends to do its part to lead.
Competition and our willingness to invest and to take risks have made every aspect of our business more innovative … more nimble … more responsive to and focused on the consumer.”In these two sentences, I am calling shenanigans on being “more responsive to and focused on the consumer” and “our industry fully intends to do its part to lead,” I could call it on my aspects of what is said, but then I’d be here all night. Everything the cable industry does is for the purpose of getting its consumers to give them more dough. They offer greater conveniences and services for more money, not because they care about their consumers in particular, but because they care about their wallets. But, they are all for-profit companies so what else can be expected. As for leading the industry, the cable companies are currently trying to play catch up. Many of the cable companies developed broadband Internet in order to generate more revenue, without considering the consequences on the industry and on other industries. They didn’t fully understand the power of the Internet and they still went about unleashing it to their consumers. Now they are scrambling to protect their industry as others seem to be collapsing. I digress.
Cox Communications used the show as a platform to announce its new broadband service which will offer 50Mbps downloaded and 5Mbps uploaded. This service will run users around $139.99/month depending upon the market, for example Lafayette Parish, La. will only pay $89.99/month. They are doing all they can to get their consumers the best their money can buy, especially considering the 50Mbps down a user can get with Verizon is $45/month. Not that Verizon is much better considering the Japanese pay the equivalent of $22/month for 100Mbps down. Why do they pay so little? Instead of cable and DSL lines being considered a utility, their companies are forced to rent the lines to competitors, which act as another revenue source for the company making their service cheaper. That is what I call looking out for the consumer, not what Cox and the other American companies are doing.
Also debuted at the show, Macrovision’s Tru2way DVR and Sprint offering the ability for subscribers to view caller ID, voicemail alerts, and such, on their TVs. To me, the Tru2way is a bit deceptive as it gives users the ability to watch DVR recordings on multiple boxes in one house. The user can record on one box, and watch on another and other similar feature. I’d assume with the name of Tru2way a user could participate in 2-way communication with the program. Instead, the user can do something I can already do with my laptop, except I can also leave my house with my laptop and watch the program then, but I guess they need to worry more about piracy than giving their customers that kind of convenience. As for Sprint’s new advancement, does anyone else see Google Voice and/or Skype playing a pinnacle role in influencing Sprint, or am I just grasping for a comparison?
The greatest announcement that truly shows how dedicated the cable industry is to being “more responsive to and focused on the consumer” is the announcement of Openet. Openet will work “behind-the-scenes” with two of the U.S. biggest cable operators to track consumers’ data, voice, and TV viewing usage. In other words they will be spying on you to see who you call and tracking every move you make online. They say it is so they can “improve the subscriber experience” by seeing what they are interested in. I think I will translate that into, “We really want to help out the RIAA and if the government wants to participate in warrant-less wiretapping again, we’ll be prepared.” Face it, those are going to be its uses, tracking who is pirating music and/or movies and TV shows and..well, maybe I am getting too 1984 with that second part. This isn’t meant to service their subscribers, unless that is a new name for people/companies that what to see what broadband users are doing.
Anyway, it seems the keynote speaker at The 2009 Cable Show is a little out of touch with the rest of the industry, rather that or they didn’t inform him they were no longer focusing on the customer’s convenience and, instead, more on controlling their usage of media. I suppose this is a good point to leave off, after debunking the “goals” of the cable industry with their own announcements of advancements.
P.s. I am still trying to figure out if I should use this or my blogger, so I am posting the same content to both.
-
A New York Times article that ran on March 30th announced that Microsoft was pulling the plug on Encarta. As a web designer I hold no feelings other than loathing towards Microsoft, thank you very much Internet Explorer, so it is pleasing to see that one of Microsoft’s ventures has failed. As someone who likes learning, this kind of worries me. Wikipedia is the leading online encyclopedia, if you are unsure of what Wikipedia is, well, you haven’t been on the Internet long. Regardless, it is a social encyclopedia in which anyone can contribute and often disputes over the accuracy of the article are solved by majority rules, not what experts say. It is a really cool concept to give the power to the masses, but the legitimacy of the information is a little unnerving. Then again that still hasn’t stopped me from using it.
The Internet is changing not just the way we gather information, but by whom the information is given. Information can be the facts we need for our research and I will even include the entertainment we seek, that is a form of information I suppose. It is creating a world where the experts no longer dictate to the people what is true and what is false, a societal truth is what is important.
Many cable companies are beginning to question their free online streaming model. The free streams are creating bad habits “that will eventually lead to the ‘Napsterization’ of cable and destroy the economic model necessary to create such shows.” Unlike broadcast stations, cable companies rely on both advertising and subscription revenue. By going to the web they are losing the subscription revenue and web advertising isn’t promising enough to support their shows. The $60 billion a year generated by subscription costs greatly outnumbers online advertising hitting the record high of $23.4 billion in 2008.
Though this tactic is being implemented to help generate the income needed to produce the shows viewers see on cable, it might be too late, if it would have worked. People are going to look at the Internet like they look at cable, they are paying for a service, so they feel like they should get all that this service should offer. If they can’t get these online streams for free, like they do now, then some may try to find alternatives, Independent sources, or worse yet for the cable company, some will try to pirate the shows. Now the channel has lost the potential for advertising.
Looking at the worst possible scenario for the cable stations, if this does indeed cause them to collapse, then where will people get their video entertainment? The only other sources I could see are the broadcasters, who aren’t doing too well either, or from independent and/or amateur producers. The problem is there is money online, but it is much more spread out than on other media. This may very well lead to the lower budget productions from society over productions from Hollywood or NYC.
Last year 62% of online Journalists felt the business was going in the wrong directions. This year the number is down to 54%. Still, the greater majority of them fear for the future of Journalism. Why shouldn’t they? There are currently talks debating if newspapers should be given non-profit status in order to keep them afloat, again, the broadcasters are suffering, and some still fear that online advertising revenues are not enough to support an editorial staff. If I were going to look at the worst case scenario, which I am, it would seem like blogs are going to be the wikipedia of the news world. The biggest problem behind this is lawsuits. When a journalist breaks a story about a company that was devastating to their image or industry, companies will often try to sue. Without the backing of another company’s law team, how will the normal person be able to afford to defend themselves from such a lawsuit. For a great example of what I mean, watch The Insider.
To straighten things out, I don’t believe either of the hypotheticals I stated will happen, the cases are too extreme. Big production companies will survive, even if many of them close their doors. Online news will not completely fall into the hands of citizen Journalism, and if so, I can guarantee that there will be some sort of federation of citizen journalists formed to not only protect these people from such lawsuits, but to also check into the legitimacy of the journalists.
The point I was trying to make is the power is leaving the hands of the few and being placed upon the shoulders of the many. It is kind of exciting. But, unfortunately, as the saying goes, “The masses are asses,” the people will find away to screw up having this power and it will be dstributed back to some form of Oligopoly, kind like our current media industry.
-
Again, another couple days without an update, I apologize. My weekend was a mixture of playing with Drupal, video games (oh Top Shop, how I love yet loathe thee), socializing, and (finally getting to our topic) toying with Squarespace. It was a fun, educational, stress-free weekend, those rarely happen so I milked it.
Anyway, every time I try to recall Squarespace’s name I seem to try to substitute “space” with “soft,” if that is any indication of where my mind goes. I am an avid TWiT.tv listener/watcher, and for the past week or two they have constantly been talking about a new website for web hosting. Leo Laporte (host of many of the shows and founder) consistently, show after show, is talking about how he is trying to switch TWiT’s hosting over to it. He has even talked with every guest, whom has been on one of his show’s, about it, including Tech superstar (yes, he is without a doubt a celebrity) Kevin Rose, and every single one of these “Tech guru’s” had nothing but awesome things to say about it. So after a week (again, might have been two) of hearing about it, everyday for about two hours, I finally decided to check it out.
It is easily one of the most powerful website generators I have ever seen. You start out selecting a template, then a layout. The next part is where it truly shines, and that is the font, color, and sizes section. In this section there is a drop down for every possible tag that can be associated with text for your site. When you select a value from the dropdown you can change the font, color, size, letter spacing, text transformation, border, basically any CSS value for text that you can think of, without knowing CSS.
Once the site is created it becomes very easy to edit; you can edit most of the site simply by clicking and dragging elements. In the top right corner there are four icons, Content Editing, Structure Editing, Style Editing, and Preview. With the content editing you can edit the content of the site by clicking what section you want to edit. Squarespace provides WYSIWYG editing, which is really nice. Then of course, the feature I love if every site has, it allows its user to submit customized code.
Other features include, blogging, email forwarding, recording site updates, outside account integration with blogger and others, and RSS feeding.
There are drawbacks. I felt like the site was very limiting. For example, you can have a header and you can have a header image, but you can’t have text and an image in your header, even blogger provides that. I feel like something as simple as that is very strange to not have the option of doing for a system so detailed and complex. It is probably one of the first things I learned how to do with CSS.
Also, the bare minimum site they offer is $8/month, which isn’t bad, but the $8 does not include a domain name, short of yourname.squarespace.com. That feels expensive for a bare minimum website that doesn’t provide it’s user with a .com (or whatever extension he or she may want).
I am not saying it isn’t worth it; it’s just not for me. I feel too limited with it to spend $8 a month for web storage. When I sat down and thought about it, I felt like I could do all of the things I thought were cool, just Squarespace did it faster.
My recommendation, if you know nothing of HTML and CSS, this might be a great service for you to get into if you want to make yourself a website. However, if you do know HTML and CSS, I’d say give it a try, you might feel like the time consumption saved makes Squarespace worth it, I’m just frugal.
If you go to their website, they have a 14 day free trial, no credit card necessary, which to me is just genius. What better way to promote your product than to give away limited time service with no strings attached, people can just walk away after their time is up without fear of giving out financial information. That alone warrants me telling you to at least try it out.
Comments (View)
Tumblrs I follow:
- Nick is:
- - a member of the Web Production team at Review Publishing
- - a candidate for an M.S. in Television Management at Drexel University
- - a graduate of Rutgers University with a B.A. in Journalism and Media Studies
- - a member of the Society of Professional Journalists.
