|
yangbert
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Albert
Country: Australia
Metro: Sydney
Gender: Male
Interests: building stuff with head and my hands. outdoors. gym training for something big and intense...like a triathlon, but i'd never enter it cuz i'd lose real bad.
Expertise: i do nothing really well
Occupation: Engineering
Industry: Government
Message: message me
Member Since:
9/17/2003
|
|
| Congress should butt out of the cell phone market
There is a recent push by Congress/govt to examine (and complain) of exclusive phone deals between the phone makers (i.e. Apple) and phone carriers (i.e. ATT). I think this is a huge stinking pile of manure. This coming from a guy that owns neither an iPhone or on the ATT network.
While I would like to see iPhone on other carriers (mainly Verizon), I do not fault the business practice for the exclusivity deal between Apple-ATT. I believe it to be incredibly smart for ATT to request such exclusivity. If the other carriers want iPhone, they all have a legit shot at carrying it. All the T-mobiles/Verizon/MetroPCS should band together and approach Apple (or other phone makers) with enough cash to make it worth Apple's effort to break the ATT contract.
Monopoly Argument...
Some folks may argue that the iPhone on ATT is a monopoly, which forces people to accept evil 2-year contracts for extraorbitant prices. I counter that by saying, why iPhone? There are equal products in the marketplace that have the same functionality. And across the board, most carriers offer the data plan at very similar rates, so the price is pretty much the same. While phones provide a numerous amount of seconday functionality....they all provide the SAME PRIMARY functionality. An iPhone works just as well as a cell phone (actually maybe worse) you owned 5 years ago. Unlike the days of Ma Bell, where phone service was a monopoly, there is a multitude of options for phone or similar services. There is no monopoly in its functionality. There are plenty of other media-type phones out there that does video/music/internet equal to (if not better) than the iPhone. Sure other phones lack the "cool" factor, but is being "cool" a true functionality of a phone? I dont think so.
This is CAPITALISM
Part of the exclusive contract is that ATT subsidizes the iPhone to make it affordable to the user. As many know, the unsubsidized iPhone (which you can purchase without contract) is around $600. Not many people can afford a $600 phone, so ATT is doing the smart plan by subsidizing the phone to a more reasonable $200. The truth is, Apple-ATT is offering something the consumers want. A great phone for good perceived value (actually ATT is paying the $400 directly to Apple for you, how is that evil?). All other carriers should follow suit and offfer better plans/phones to compete with the iPhone. You can actually purchase an unlocked iPhone and use it on your perferred GSM carrier (hardware limitations keeps iPhone from Sprint/Verizon anyways).
Full of Whiners
I think this is the latest flaw in a society of whiners. You can't get what you want, so you cry until someone gives it to you. The mobile phone market is a higly competitive environment, each trying new tactics to get a heads-up on the competition. Whining and removing exclusivity deals hampers competition. It is this original type of competition that forces other carriers to up their innovation in producing the next great phone/service. It is this competition that had Apple create the original iPhone. It is not in the consumer's best interest to remove this competition as a lack of competition fosters complacency/laziness. Just think of today's DSL/cablemodem/broadband market, no real competition lead to slow speeds and poor customer service.
It is a consumer's market for mobile devices...dont let the congressmen change that! There are products out there equal to the task of the iPhone (admittedly without the "cool" factor). Giving everyone neutral ground with an iPhone is NOT going to make the world better, in fact it may make everyone less productive overall. And in giving everyone access to iPhone, wouldn't that be making Apple a monopoly in phone hardware? Then more crying will occur....and another useless cycle will start.
Honestly, it is in Apple's own mind to dominate and control the cell phone market. If they are left on one network, it means they need to work doubly hard to make all the features to compete with phones from other networks. Let the market work itself out.
And to the congressmen out there....stop wasting time figuring out what cellphone and carrier you want. Go solve the bigger issues of healthcare, social security.
links:
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/06/fcc-to-examine-mobile-phone-exclusives/
http://gizmodo.com/5294312/senator-kerry-doesnt-like-apple+att-exclusive-iphone-deal
| | |
| Solar math...I was curious why we dont have more solar homes being built if we are all trying to be "green."
Here is my insight on solar technology as current. But to make this useful...here are some terms that will be used.
Watt or Wattage: Unit of power, in this case I mean electrical
power. Also used as kilowatt (kW) and megawatt (MW). The 100 watt
light bulb really does have a meaning...so does the 500 watt microwave
oven and 2000 watt hair dryer and so forth....more power!
Kilowatt-hour: Unit of power used over time (hour). If you leave
a 100 watt lightbulb on for one hour, the energy used is 100 watt-hour,
or 0.1 kilowatt-hour (kWh).
***********************
In
general, the price of electricity varies region to region....southern
states tend to have it best at around 8cents/kWh with nothern
states/california closer to around 14cents/kWh. Places inbetween tend
to have prices inbetween. I'll use 10cents/kWh to be average.
Also in general, I would say that the average household consumes
around 2000kWh of energy per month (and climbing!). 2000kWh/(30*24hrs)
= 2.78kW being used at any given hour average. So math equation
time... 10cents/kWh x 2000kWh = $200 power bill per month.
After all this tv-campaigning for a greener America...you have
decided to splurge on solar panels on the roof of your house because
you want to be power independent, save money, and reduce carbon
emissions (which your standard power company produces...a lot). Doing
much research, you find installation to cost about $12/watt. To help
size your solar panel...you figure you need around a 3kW system to
balance the 2.78kW being used on an average basis. Therefore the
installation of the system will come out around $36,000 investment.
Now if this was a perfect system and your house generates as much
electricity as it consumes....the $36,000 investment would take 180
months to pay off (15 years). To me, that is a long time to recover
your investment. But since we live in a flawed world...the solar panel
can't generate power at night and cloudy days certainly dont help...and
its power varies depending on the sun's position (think sunrise versus
noon versus sunset). All those together will lower the efficiency of
the panel...so in all each month you maybe save $80 on power as oppose
to $200. At $80/mo savings...it would take 37.5 years to pay off the
initial investment. This makes me feel that the solar investment is a
waste of money. If you casually invested the $36,000 in a 3% yearly
interest for 37.5 years...you would come out with approx $109,000.
So the smart money today says invest your money instead of going
green...that is unless you like that good vibe of being green (costing
you lots of dollars in the process).
My opinion is that
eco-friendly solar power would become economically feasible for the
masses if installation costs around $1.50/watt, which means that your
return of investment is between 5-8 years on the real world model.
Links:
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/calculators/PVWATTS/
http://www.trustyguides.com/solar-panels.html
| | |
| Outlook on society...
I read the Dilbert blog almost everyday
lately, and it can be quite poignant at times. I dont read it to
agree/disagree with Scott Adams...I read it because it makes you
think. Of all the blogs and web-feeds I read (I go through quite a
few)...I think I enjoy this one the most because it makes me stop and
think. Beyond that, it usually makes me want to write something down.
So the blog from yesterday was about Hard Work...and here are a few questions in my mind...
Do you believe you are harder working than 10%/25%/50%/75%/95% of other Americans?
If you had to choose between being known as a hard worker or intelligent person, which would you choose?
Do you believe in helping the less fortunate?
Do you believe in helping the lazy?
How do you distinguish them?
If you had to choose one of the extremes....capitalism or socialism....which one?
(Capitalism defined as extreme stratification of wealth.)
(Socialism defined as the ultimate equalizer.)
| | |
| Obama rips McCain on $300M battery proposal
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080624/AUTO01/806240436/1148/rss25
Now I read this article a bit differently than the subject line. What struck me about this article isn't cars/battery/energy or even Obama vs McCain. What I read in this article is INCENTIVE vs POLICY. Now both have its usefulness from time to time, you just gotta pick you time.
Do you like to be tempted by the carrot to get something done? I do...I do it everyday...its called paycheck. :) Its called an incentive. I like having incentives to get things done....pro athletes have incentives written into their contracts to meet performance numbers. Some CEOs have incentives when their company does well. How about war....do we need an incentive to win war? Yea, incentive doesn't work well there.....so it has drawbacks.
And there is policy...which is "you can either get on the train or get run over." Frankly I tend to prefer to have some choice of participation. I want to think that my choice matters, and when policy comes down to get-it-done....I'm not a happy camper. I dont take well to ultimatums...but at the same time, I rally behind the guy that says "We will win this war" or the coach that says "we will win this game."
So what of this article...I am a capitalist... Energy is not a war...its a choice. I think that for companies that like to line their pockets with cash....having an incentive is a better choice for the companies and economy, rather than taking the train towards a goal without a clear path of cost. I think a 50mpg "Accord" or "Camry" would be awesome...except I would do it via a huge commercial tax break to the first company that gets a production car to that level.
| | |
| Every four years...I show a little more interest in politics....then it goes away after November for another four year slumber.
Truth
is I watch politics because its funny; SNL, Daily Show and Colbert
Report are the main ways I gather intel on the candidates. At the end
of the day, I can only digest satire/comedy...."serious" gets all used
up at the office. And perhaps due to the satircal nature of all those
shows, I think all the candidates are idiots. So which idiot is the
lesser of the evils....
So the list for the "perfect" candidate, in my mind:
- Tax relief
- Help the poor/jobless
- Food subsidies
- Raising the bar for minimum standard of healthcare
- Minimum standard of K-12 education
- Gun Control
- No Gun control
- Pro International Trade
- Job protection against foreign interest.
- Declare all our foreign "wars" a victory and bring troops home
- Give us free oil
I realize most of these ideals are not feasible and counter each other, so in the end all you have is a Yes-man.
| | |
|
