Michi Knows

As I mentioned in a previous post, I kept a satire blog a while back that I plan on retiring. Here is another post from that blog that I really enjoyed writing.

A recent study conducted by the MPAA found that movie piracy (theft) caused $6.1 billion in annual lost revenue for the movie industry, a notable 75% increase over previous estimates. Today, we released the results of a new study that investigated the effects of movie piracy (theft) and indicates that losses to piracy (theft) are greater by two or three orders of magnitude of the MPAA’s most conservative estimates.

Our study concluded that piracy (theft) accounted for $704 billion of annual lost revenue for the movie industry and is only increasing. The study looked into who commits this terrible crime, the reasons for file-sharing (theft), and how much of an economic impact it causes.

As a general trend observed in the study, piracy (theft) was found most rampant among college students that were:

• Male
• Cheap
• Sexually dissatisfied
• Justifiably stupid
• Attended the University of Southern California (USC)

In the study, several strict scientific surveys were conducted to determine why thieves were so inclined to steal from the movie studios. Below is a sample of one of the surveys that addressed the motivation behind stealing:

From the choices below, pick the top reason you steal high-quality movies from the innocent and helpless motion picture industry:

• 75.34% chose:
  I am a conscientious person, but there’s just not enough laws that indicate if file “sharing” (stealing) is illegal. Perhaps the DMCA should be revised to make this clearer. I would welcome clearer laws on file-sharing.
• 24.5% chose:
  The problem is that there is too much technology that makes it easy for thieves to come over and steal the excellent Hollywood movies from my computer. Unfortunately, my immoral younger sibling keeps installing the file-sharing programs while I’m at work. I would never share movies if illegal applications like BitTorrent were erased from the Internet forever.
• 0.16% chose:
  Movie tickets are expensive and the quality of films are decreasing. I am a reckless, violent thief, and I steal from the benevolent studios. I hate black people.

It is assumed the survey had a margin of error of +0.16%.

The results of this question very clearly show the need for stricter laws against file-sharing and the obvious need to criminalize file-sharing programs. The results also indicate consumer support for such legislation, and also dispelled the notion that the quality or price of the films have anything to due with declining box office sales.

File-sharing over networks such as BitTorrent and Kazaa accounted for most of the losses. The studios lost an estimated $7340 per file sharer. This loss was estimated using the following breakdown:

• $12 movie ticket for the thief.
• $12 movie ticket of the thief’s date.
• $384 in movie ticket sales of the thief’s friends because the thief will share the file instead of recommending them to pay for the movie.
• $204 in movie rentals for each person mentioned above.
• $1190 in DVD sales from each person mentioned above.
• $5538 legal costs to prosecute the thief.

Note: The study did not take take into consideration the further economic damage the thief causes by clogging up the legal system and further crowding jails.

Since it is commonly known that Kazaa had users in the tens of millions, after complex statistical and economic analysis, it was determined that losses from file-sharing easily exceeded $100 billion. The final losses of $704 billion (in 2005 alone) were calculated by adjusting for inflation, adding interest, accounting for the growing number of households with Internet access, and applying the most probable and most widely assumed growth pattern for piracy — an exponential growth function.

The study predicted that losses due to piracy will easily exceed $2.5 trillion in 2006, and, if not quickly contained through prosecution of thieves and passing amendments to the DMCA, losses will spiral out of control in 10 years and will likely surpass the GDP.

The study recommends that to fight piracy, the following steps are made:

• Create a new secret law enforcement arm to deal specifically with copyright violators
• Create news laws to allow movie studios to monitor Internet traffic of suspected copyright thieves
• Further develop DRM technology to be even more secure and restrictive
• Launch a more aggressive anti-pirating campaign that helps label it as “uncool” (see the anti-smoking ads of the 90’s)
• Set jail time for file-sharing to 25 years to life
• File even more lawsuits against file-sharing thieves and demand even higher settlement payments

Due to potential revenue lost to piracy, most details and methodologies used in the study are confidential. This study is available at $7340 for a 14-day limited license. Each copy will be passworded, infused with DRM technology, and contain digital watermarks that will later be used to track and prosecute customers who violate the license by sharing the contents of this study with others. A new study on the effects of such types of piracy is currently under way.

In another blog prior to this one, I wrote about a prediction I have for iPods. Because I plan on fully retiring that blog in the near future, I thought I would port the post here to keep the prediction alive. Note: I wrote this post long before the recent flurry of iPhone headlines.

Here’s my prediction: The next iPod will be the new hook Apple will use to enter the cell phone market.

A little history:

1. First Apple introduced an iPod. It played music well.
2. Then Apple introduced color iPods with photo capabilities. A mostly useless upgrade, but still cool.
3. Then Apple introduced a video iPod. Suddenly portable video became a hit.
4. Then Motorola introduced the completely shitty Rokr iTunes phone. Nobody cared.

The reason why no cell phones have been successful with music playing integration is because the two tasks require use input methods that are starkly different. Making calls requires a number pad and the ability to browse through a phone book. Sending text messages requires typing abilities. Browsing music, on the other hand, requires volume control, music selection, and play control. Let’s not forget the entire device must be able to sync the music files too. Dumber people in the past have speculated Apple would release a phone iPod that had an old fashioned digital number dial type of thing that would super impose over the click wheel. Wrong. Dead freaking wrong!

Let’s fill in the gap. Recently there have been very prominent rumors about a new version of the video iPod that has a giant touch screen with a digital click wheel that only appears as necessary. Sounds cool, right? Now you’ll be able to enjoy videos more than ever! But wait, there’s more.

Apple’s newly rumored screen-only interface is the key. No, not because they can superimpose numbers over it when you’re in “phone mode.” Like I said above, wrong! Rather, because when you go into “phone mode,” the click wheel disappears and is replaced by a cell phone style keyboard. That’s right. The new all digital front panel allows Apple to overcome the problem of mixing two different devices with completely different input methods. The new iPod will simply drop the click wheel if you aren’t doing a music or video related action. It’s genius.

Imagine an iPod that has a small, albeit low-quality, speaker that allows you use the iPod like a phone as well as hear your movies. Imagine newly upgraded iPod ear buds that allow you to make and receive phone calls without ever taking your iPod out of your pocket, all while simultaneously pausing your music. Imagine a phone where your ring tone could be any song you own.

Apple won’t be pushing this new idea forward any time soon. The world is not yet ready for an all-in-one device. But the day will come. The current big personal electronic devices are:

• Camera
• Music player (iPod)
• Movie player (iPod)
• Cell phone
• PDA
• Internet device

It’s clear that some devices are best left independent. Apple won’t want to make their pristine products murky by adding mediocre peripherals such as a crappy 3.0 megapixel camera; not to mention such a hardware extension will probably compromise the sleekness of an iPod. That said, cameras are likely off the list for ever merging with the iPod unless they can integrate it without messing up the smooth curves on the device.

Apple could go another route by integrating Internet access, but I predict that Internet access has too many geek-only issues such as security that may confuse or annoy consumers — Apple will probably never merge Internet access with the iPod. However, they may integrate wireless networking functionality to allow syncing with iTunes on a computer located nearby. And maybe, just maybe, on some random whim, Apple could integrate Internet access simply to allow direct purchases from the iTunes store. However, a consumer who can’t trial samples of music is less likely to buy anyway, so, again, I predict Apple probably won’t introduce this feature in order to protect its “just works” iTunes music-purchasing experience.

Before the cell phone is introduced into the iPod, I predict Apple will test this different-interface idea by introducing a new sub-feature into the iPod that will make use of it. Potential applications are:

• Ability to sync with your iCal program (PDA integration). This would introduce a new task managing / calendar interface.
• A different interface to browse photos.
• The ability to edit music tag information (such as artist or song name).

Apple will be careful about this. They will avoid the (noob) trap of creating 18 different interfaces for 18 different types of situations. Likely, there’s only a few types of visual interface layouts they will introduce:

• Buttons (like on a web page)
• A number pad like on a phone
• Yes / No / Cancel dialog

I predict this will be introduced in early 2007 and polished by year-end. Tell me I don’t sound right.

I kept a IT satire blog for a short time before starting this one. The following is a post from that blog.

I remember back in the days when things were simple. If you wanted to do something on your computer, you just did it. There wasn’t this bullshit about logging in or editing registry keys. In fact, there wasn’t even a registry. Or screen savers. It was awesome. Sure, we didn’t have cool things like “desktop wallpapers” and “8 bit color” but who uses that stuff anyway.

You see, as an avid user of the UNIX operating systems, I have grown fond of its simple and straight-forward user-interface. Let’s compare.

Windows:

Now what the hell is this stuff about “Shut Down.” Seriously. If I want to turn off my toaster, I unplug it. Imagine if your TV required you to hit a button and select “Turn the $%@# off” every time you wanted to go to sleep — and then spent 20 seconds “saving your settings.” You know what I say to that button?! Screw it. I just unplug my computer when I’m done. It’s done when I say it’s done.

See all those icons everywhere? “Network Places?” “My Computer?” “Control Panel?” How are these not all the same thing? Who the hell knows what they are? How do you pipe the application output?? Why doesn’t man work? Where is Vi??

And if I decide to entertain Windows and start clicking around, I find that it takes me three clicks just to get to my C drive. Let’s compare this to good old DOS:

That’s right. I start off looking at my C drive. There is NO clicking in DOS or Linux. Do you see the simplicity? Do you see the beauty?

Now let’s compare functionality. Let’s say you want to delete a file. Check out the cool hoops Windows makes you jump through: 

I’m sorry, but when I hit the “DEL” key, I expect the computer to delete the file! You don’t see confirmation dialogs that ask you:

And don’t even get me started on the Recycle Bin. If I hit the “DEL” key, hit “YES” on your dumb question, and yet the file still isn’t gone, you’ve officially made me mad. I like Linux because it treats me like the competent computer expert that I am. Notice how deleting a few files is clean, simple, and without any confirmation crap:

Or let’s say I want to install some software on Windows.

Do you know how ridiculous that process is? It’s full of all these strange looking choices that have all these buttons and words on them that you actually have to read.

Whereas in, for example, Linux, I could install Apache by simply typing in one line and then sitting back and relaxing:

cd /usr/local/download; tar xzf php-3.0.12.tar.gz -C ../etc; cd /usr/local/etc; ln -s php-3.0.12 php; ./configure –with-apache=../httpd –with-config-file-path=/www/conf –enable-track-vars; make; make install; cd ../httpd; cat config.status; ./config.status –activate-module=src/modules/php3/libphp3.a; make; bin/apachectl stop; make install; bin/apachectl start

No confusing choices to make. No strange check boxes and drop down menus you don’t really understand. No “Do you agree to sell me your soul” terms that you have to click “agree” to continue.

And then there’s Linux.

I swear, Windows is 10 years behind the Linux. If only Windows would learn a thing or two from the talented Linux GUI developers.

Ever get a PHP warning about this? There’s plenty of long winded explanations for what the hell this error means, so I won’t elaborate on why it’s called what it is. It means you have an unexpected double colon (::) in your code.