|
My Radio is Just Fine, Thank You
|
10.28.2004
|
Link to
this post
When satellite radio from XM and Sirius were announced years ago, I thought it was a pretty neat idea. Clear reception, some commercial free channels, and exclusive programming are just some of its features. Those things would be great, but paying for radio? I don't think so. Since its entry in the market, satellite radio has been more of a novelty that you didn't hear much about.
Then just a couple weeks ago, XM announced an 11-year $650 million dollar deal with Major League Baseball to broadcast games to its subscribers. Sirius just recently signed shock jock Howard Stern to a 5-year "multi-million dollar" contract. XM has 2.5 million customers that pay $10 a month for around 120 channels. Sirius only has about 700,000 subscribers and charges $13 a month. Both require you to buy a receiver and pay an activation fee.
Both companies have been making bold claims about their "legitimacy" after signing their high-profile contracts. I think this is laughable. Just because you throw millions of dollars at a person or organization to provide content for you does not make you legitimate. Sirius has lost over $1 billion since its inception in 1999. You are only legitimate when you start to make money. I know I could be eating my words in a few years, but I would be willing to bet that one of these companies will be out of business in less than 10 years. And, I'd be willing to bet that both of them will have a very hard time making enough money to pay these contracts that they just signed.
Why do I say this? First of all, I think this is a very niche market that only a limited number of people will want. I'm thinking the rich who just want to try the newest thing, those that spend significant amounts of time on the road like truckers, the motorhome crowd, and those with long commutes; and maybe those that live in the middle of nowhere and don't get many radio signals. For the rest of us, do we really need another monthly bill?
Of course, traditional radio isn't perfect. Sometimes there's poor reception, too many commercials, and annoying DJs. But a lot of people like their local stations. Most don't mind the music, some become attached to the DJs, and others like the local flair of radio. Even if you don't particularly like your local radio, would you really be willing to pay for a receiver, activation fee, and monthly fee just to add a little more noise to your life? I certainly wouldn't.
Satellite radio's downfall can be explained by the forementioned Geeky Jock Law of Diminishing Returns on Technology. It fits part a), which says that the money you spend for the equipment and service is not worth it because the result is not significantly better than the free radio you already have. Think about it, you're paying around $150 for the equipment and activation, and around $150 a year for the service. You might as well buy a hard drive MP3 player and one of those music subcription services so you can download as many songs as you want. Then you can have tens of thousands of songs you can take anywhere, plus store your other data. Then, if you get tired of all that music, you can throw in a CD. If that doesn't do it, you can turn on the trusty old radio.
Hey, I don't think radio is perfect, but it fills the silence in a car just fine without adding another bill in my mailbox each month. Until radio has nothing I want to listen to or I can't find a CD to play, I'll just say "No Thanks" to XM and Sirius.
|
Media Center PCs - I Just Don't Get It
|
10.13.2004
|
Link to
this post
Microsoft wants to get its hands on anything that it can put some of its software into, including your TV. Its WebTV experiment failed miserably, although they just released a new version of that too. Over a year ago they announced Windows XP Media Center Edition that goes into special Media Center PCs. These PCs come with a TV tuner, large hard drive, a remote, and a special interface to switch between TV, music, photos, and regular computer-using. Microsoft just released the third generation (if you're counting) of the special Media Center Windows XP operating system. Critics love the interface, but still complain about the less-than-stellar TV picture. This critic says, "Save your money."
Unless you're a college student living in a tiny dorm room, Media Center PCs just plain don't make sense. Do you really want to watch not-great-quality TV on a 17" monitor? Are you going to pull up your easy chair next to your computer desk? Maybe you could invite your friends over, move your couch and love seat around the new Media Center PC, and watch the big game on you relatively puny LCD monitor. Let's say you suddenly remember that the presidential debate is on tonight, you go to turn on your Media Center PC and have to wait 30 seconds to a minute just for your "TV" to boot up. By that time, you'd miss at least five of John Kerry's "plans".
That is the fundamental problem - interaction with a PC is completely different than the interaction with a TV. With a computer, you're close to the screen so you can input and read text, as well as make selections with your mouse. TV viewing doesn't require a lot of interaction (unless you are a professional channel surfer.) All you are doing is watching moving images on the screen. For this, you can lay back and relax from a comfortable distance. Because you are farther away, you need a bigger screen and the bigger screen makes the moving images seem more realistic.
I believe Media Center PCs will be useless to most people until big screen LCD and plasma HDTV screens have become affordable to the masses. These screens have the high resolution needed for decent computer use, and they are more than big enough to comfortably watch TV from a distance in your easy chair.
What do you do for a few years until those screens become affordable to you? Remember, all Media Center PCs are basically computers with a Tivo inside. If you want to record TV, just buy a Tivo. I don't think there has ever been a product more beloved by its owners. It's extremely useful and easy-to-use and you can use it with any TV. Tivos can be found for as little as $50 after rebate. You then pay the $13 per month for the Tivo service or $300 for the lifetime of the Tivo unit. By the time that Tivo unit dies, LCD and plasma screens will probably come down to a reasonable price so that you can have your TV and computer in one box (if you want).
10.03.2004
|
Link to
this post
I just got done reading one of the best articles on using your digital camera. It was in the recent issue of PC Magazine and it's so good I wish I would have written it myself. Seriously though, it goes through every setting that is available on a digital camera. The authors describe (in plain English) when and how to adjust flash, aperture, shutter speed, exposure modes, ISO, white balance and more. Most of us just set the camera to "auto" and just hope that the picture turns out. That's what I do most of the time too. You'd be surprised how much a simple turn of the dial can make a picture turn out perfect. But, you have to know what you're doing. If you know nothing about photography, you've got to read this to educate yourself and get the best possible pictures from your digital camera. You can read the article here.
|
The Geeky Jock Law of Diminishing Returns on Technology
|
10.01.2004
|
Link to
this post
All the rage these days is about the Digital Smart Home. All of your electronics, appliances, lights, etc. are supposed to be able to communicate with each other and you, as the grand master of it all, can program it so that you can say, get on the wireless web with your cellphone and make your home stereo play your favorite MP3 streamed from your computer while the oven preheats so that you can put a pizza in when you get home from work. That may be a little over the top and at least a few years in the future, but there is a push to do relatively simpler things such as allow you to stream music from your computer to all the rooms in your house.
All that may sound pretty neat to you, but I just end up asking "Why?" Why do we need to need to have music streamed from our computer to every room in the house? I can't think how it would ever be worthy of my time, money, or energy to do this. John Dvorak of PC magazine is one of my favorite tech pundits. He recently stated in his column: "These are all pursuits of the idle rich. The idea that I can tell my PVR (personal video recorder) to record a movie while I'm driving around in the Benz has little to do with normal reality. This has everything to do with people having too much money and being unable to figure out what to do with it."
I would wholeheartedly agree. There is a point at which a technical project (unless you're rich with a lot of time on your hands) is just not worth doing because of the sacrifice it takes for so little return on your investment of time and money. This has lead me to formulate The Geeky Jock Law of Diminishing Returns on Technology:
The amount of time, money, and energy required to make technology do something you want is inversely proportional to the amount satisfaction it brings you if...
a) The result is not significantly better that what is currently available to you
or
b) You do not often utilize the result
Let me explain by giving an example. With the widespread adoption of home wireless networking, people want to wirelessly stream the thousands of tracks of music on their computers to their home stereos. That's where home media adapters come in. These devices physically connect to your stereo and have a wireless card that can stream music from your computer. They cost at least a couple hundred dollars. I've read dozens of user reviews on devices from many manufacturers. If you're lucky enough get your media adapter recognized on your network, you then have to use special software on your computer to organize the music in a way the adapter can retrieve it. Then you have to deal with a clunky interface on your TV controlled by a poorly designed remote that is frustrating to use because it takes the adapter a second or two to process each button push. Then, the adapter tends to freeze up after every few songs.
Initially, it sounded like a good idea. But, one has to look at the cost. There is the cost of the player (hundreds of dollars), the cost of rearranging the music on your computer, the cost of your time trying to get it setup, and finally the cost of the headaches it causes you when you try to use it. Sure, theoretically you now have your whole collection of music at your fingertips (I stress theoretically). But, this result is not significantly better than what is currently available. You could take 10 minutes and burn hundreds of your favorite MP3s to a couple CDs and play it in your DVD player (they all do this). You could move the computer into the room where you most often listen to music. For the same price (probably less) you could buy a hard drive-based MP3 player that would also hold all of your music and you could take it with you wherever you go. You'd simply plug it into your stereo with a Y-adapter that costs $5 at Radio Shack. Or, you could simply put a CD in the CD player.
The benefit the home media adapter provides is not something you would often utilize either. Sure it has the wow factor that may impress a couple of your friends. Even if you're a real music afficianado, how often would you actually use it? I know that for me, it wouldn't be that much. When I'm at home after work, a lot of the time I like to have some peace and quiet. Even when I do feel like listening to music, my wife is in the mood for some peace and quiet. Do you see where I'm going with this?
Also notice that simple, affordable technology fits into the law. Isn't it true that some of the things that we love the most are simple, affordable, and just plain do the job? Finding these types of products is the real challenge and that is what GeekyJock.com is all about.
Before you decide to spend your hard-earned money and valuable time on a high-tech product, you may want to consider the Geeky Jock Law of Diminishing Returns on Technology.
I'd love to read your comments and experiences with this issue.
Archives
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
September 2005
October 2005
January 2006
February 2006
May 2006
June 2006
August 2006
March 2007
|
