Guardian Own-goal

I've written on many occasions about the Guardian and Observer - their inability to call the right shots on Apple, the MMR scandal of the Observer and a few other gaffes, but I had to write this one down for posterity demonstrating that their sports correspondents also seem to be a bit weak.

On Sunday in the last game of the season, Everton beat Fulham by 2-0, (well done Everton by the way and particularly congratulations to David Moyes and Bill Kenwright for an amazing year), and the Guardian report by Jamie Jackson on the match had the following gem (no doubt it's been fixed in the link UPDATE - yes it has, but here's the quote anyway):

Sir Alex Ferguson's Manchester United are Everton's opponents in Saturday's FA Cup final.

This will no doubt come as a shock to Everton, who felt that beating Manchester United in the semi-finals would have been enough to eliminate them from the competition. Chelsea may also feel aggrieved having been ousted after legitimately beating Arsenal in the other semi-final.

This is such a basic mistake, it's hard to imagine anyone even remotely qualified in football making it. But perhaps, Mr Jackson just wanted to get United mentioned a few times in the short report on the match? Perhaps the article gets more hits if this team is mentioned, even though the link to this game was tenuous at best?

Anyway guys, time for a root and branch clean up of your writers?

I'll be winding this blog down even further over the coming months as no one is really interested, and I'm so short of time nowadays (those that know me will understand why, those that don't are free to ask!). But I will try to take the opportunity to revisit some of the posts and see if Hobsblog called the shots better than the British press. (hint: I think we did!)

Tags: Guardian, Everton, Fulham

Free Speech In Danger

Just a small post in support of the very valuable site The Quackometer.

This is a great site debunking all the ridiculous snake oil, wu-wu claims of the increasing numbers of people/companies who are putting down good science for their own personal gains, spreading fear, uncertainty, doubt, illness and even death. There are many other sites giving more information about this situation, here's a few links:

One
Two

But, irrespective of the arguments involved, we should be most concerned at the failure of important companies to guard the net and ensure freedom of speech. Unfortunately, even Google have succumbed to this, which is very scary indeed (check the first item in the search results). As for the Quackometer's hosting company - Netcetera - they should be truly ashamed at their behaviour in this episode. I have written to them. Why not do the same?

Well, "Dr"/"Prof" Joseph Chikelue Obi, you can just fuck yourself. As a disgraced professional and fraudster, you should be ashamed of yourself. What you have done to your patients, what you're claiming to do for them, how you're trying to recruit more snake oil salesmen to your clan, AND what you have done in an attempt to shut down people who merely bring attention to your failings is truly despicable.

I think it is important that those of us who value free speech make efforts to bring attention to this outrage. So, please post a link to the Quackometer on your site to support this or write a comment of support.

Tags: The Quackometer, Netcetera Google

Life Returns to Normal? (humour)

I posted about the devastating floods in Herefordshire, Worcestershire and Gloucestershire a couple of weeks ago. Hundreds of thousands of people have been affected with no electricity and no water for almost two weeks. Thousands of businesses have been devastated through damage or the by-product of the economy as it normally is, just coming to a halt. (Of course, our experiences next to South East Asia are themselves relatively trifling).

So, it was good to see, while on a cycle ride through Herefordshire today, that life has obviously returned to normal as witnessed by THE major news in the Hereford Times which I was able to snap for your benefit. Note that The Hereford Times is THE key local newspaper for one of the areas most affected by these floods.

I continued to suffer fits of laughter for the rest of the bike ride, wondering for instance whether the reporter thought that seagulls should be able to distinguish between guide dogs and ordinary dogs (presumably fair game for seagulls), or whether the reporter felt that SOMEBODY had to act - perhaps by issuing ASBOs to the anti-social seagulls? Or maybe, seagulls have a code for divebombing which awards additional points for getting guide dogs or blind people as in the 70's film Death Race 2000? Unfortunately, I cannot answer these questions as I couldn't bring myself to buy a copy.

But in the end (sadly and humourlessly) the sheer inanity of this headline is just another tiny bit of evidence in my slowly growing dossier on the patheticness of the British press (and perhaps its readership). While a troubling incident to, er, the blind person and indeed the guide dog, after such devastation, and indeed, even without it, are there not more public interest stories in Herefordshire deserving of our attention than this? (Yes, there are, fortunately the BBC has many).

Tags: British Press, Hereford, Hereford Times, July Floods

Holding the Observer to account (again)

Back last year, the (Sunday) Observer newspaper - sister to the Guardian - ran a truly amazing full-page article entitled "Why the iPod is losing its cool" by David Smith, supposed technology correspondent.

In this article, Mr Smith, claimed that

Sales are declining at an unprecedented rate. Industry experts talk of a 'backlash' and of the iPod 'wilting away before our eyes'

This article was written as a factual piece not an opinion piece. I made mention of it in this blog post, but decided not to attack it then. After all, perhaps David knew something I didn't and that iPod sales WERE in freefall?

I further chose not to comment on it after Apple's first quarterly announcement post the Smith article when they demonstrated once again iPod sales had risen 35% over the previous year. I again avoided the urge to comment after the December quarter when sales rose an astonishing 50% over the previous year (a year when both the iPod video and iPod nano had been introduced to much acclaim). I chose not to comment on it after Apple's Q2 announcement in April, when sales were up 24%. But now, a full 4 quarters of reporting has passed, and really, I can't let it sit any longer.

In the quarter just gone, iPod sales were up again - 21% in fact over the same quarter last year. In that 12 months, Apple's iPod sales were 35% up on the previous year. In that last year, Apple has sold over 50million iPods which represent 47% of all iPods ever sold. In other words, Apple has in the last 12 months sold just about as many iPods as it did in the previous 5 years COMBINED. Furthermore, in the iPod's history, it has never suffered a sales decline on a year-over-year basis on any measurable financial quarter.

That doesn't sound like a product that is either "losing its cool" or suffering from "declining sales at an unprecedented rate". I haven't seen too many analysts dissing the iPod either (though there's always a few media boys).

What was the reason for Mr Smith's article? Was it to try to create a backlash? Was it influenced by another company about to launch a product? Was he hoping to be able to claim when a possible iPod decline came along that he was first? Or was it just absolute stupidity and ignorance?

Would Mr Smith or the Observer like to apologise and to admit they have been wildly wrong? Would they care to write a similar full page article gushing about the apparently unstoppable iPod phenomenon? Given how the Observer can not even bring itself to apologise about a life and death issue it has got blatantly wrong, I'm not holding my breath.

(I'd like to think there ISN'T a conspiracy here and that it is plain ignorance. I suspect Mr Smith used two sequential quarters of iPods sold to point to a decline. That's a pretty poor way to use statistics that surely anyone at school is taught about. It was also an "unprecedented rate of decline" because there had never been a decline (and there still hasn't unless you believe consumer products exhibit no seasonality).

How about owning up, David, and saying you were absolutely and completely wrong? Or are you going to try getting the same message out again in the hope that at SOME point in the future, you will actually be right?


Tags: Apple, iPod, Observer, Sales, Guardian

Pathetic Observer non-apology

I posted about this a couple of weeks ago.

Today, buried well inside the paper and after the editorials and most commentaries was a "clarification."

Really, this is just not good enough. Speaking with friends last night, they are strongly influenced by such reporting (which was of course copied and run by the other mainstream press groups). We have trusted our newspapers to give fair and balanced reports based on fact. This article and its subsequent coverage in the other press has set back public understanding of this subject by several years and unreasonably made the public question science even more, ironically when it is proper science that is the only way to truth in this, rather than the mumbo-jumbo "science" practised by Wakefield. Will The Observer make an apology over their sycophantic piece on him from the same edition after he is found guilty of professional misconduct by the BMA, as he surely will be? There are serious consequences of this public misunderstanding.

I will leave it to Ben Goldacre (Bad Science columnist at the Guardian) to give his verdict on the Observer "clarification", with suitable links to the whole sorry story. (Ben, I don't think they made a hash of apologising! They didn't apologise at all for the article and the mistakes - only a weak apology for not trying harder to contact one of the people they quoted! Surely, an apology for actually quoting somebody you didn't speak to wouldn't have been too difficult would it as a start?)

I am still considering abandoning my subscription to the Observer over this. Today's article makes that more likely not less. They had a chance to set the record straight, but all they've done is to compound their mistakes and demonstrate that they either don't get it, or don't want to get it.

UPDATE: I have indeed cancelled my subscription for the Observer. It doesn't save me very much - just about £10 per year, as I will now revert to just a Guardian subscription. I have also complained to the Readers' Editor. I feel better!

Tags: Autism, The Observer, MMR, Andrew Wakefield, Ben Goldacre

Hobsbog....An Admission

I have been overcome with admiration for the string of Cabinet ministers who have come out today and admitted they smoked cannabis. What guts to come out right after the first admission from Jacqui Smith (who at least came out first). I'm 110% sure that opportunism was not a factor in these new admissions - just honesty and integrity.

I would therefore like to take this opportunity to admit that I, too, have smoked cannabis on one occasion in San Francisco, and on one occasion in Amsterdam. I did this purely to ensure the smooth conclusion to business deals by showing my empathy with the real criminals who were obviously addicted and probably dealers in their spare time. I absolutely did not inhale, and I was not affected by it in any pleasurable way. I would never do it again, and I hope those that do now are put away for a longtime as they should know better, especially now as the Independent has told them it's a BAD thing.

< /sarcasm> but unfortunately not < /end mass hypocrisy from mainstream media and political establishment>

The British Press...(continued)

I've run a number of posts here about how badly our newspapers report on certain subjects. Yesterday, however, we reached a new low, with two sickening articles in the Observer about MMR and autism, including a cringing interview with the person who has done most to spread FUD, and consequently led to increased deaths and serious disabilities via higher (perhaps quasi-epidemic) measles and rubella infection rates. The main article was the front page headline.

I almost cancelled my Guardian/Observer subscription on the spot, but then how would I get my regular dose of ire?

I will not go into this subject in too much detail here, as there are far more qualified people, and better writers to boot covering this development.

I will instead first link to Ben Goldacre's Bad Science post which covers the developments pretty well, links to other stories, and has some interesting developments (including one of the two scientists the Observer quoted as "privately supporting an MMR link" apparently accused the Observer of fabricating comments, and therefore presumably leaving the Observer with just one of the seven academics thinking this way. Evidence shown on Ben's post seems to show this "academic" as somewhat unhinged and unprofessional at the very least.

Other links to follow include:
A reasoned article at Breath Spa for Kids
Or have a look at the journalist's qualifications for writing about this subject!

Also look out for articles at The Holford Watch
- an anti-dote site to one of the more ridiculous "media nutritionists" who pass themselves off (to the gullible press) as scientists.

MMR WAS a valid idea to be researched as involved in (some cases of) autism. But it has been researched ad nauseam and shown not to be involved AT ALL. The damage done because of the insistence on this link is severe around the world and especially in this country. What is so sad to see is how the supposedly-intelligent broadsheets run with this stuff.

Perhaps, those who believe in good science reporting should complain to the Press Complaints Commission?

Incidentally, if anyone dares to say the Observer is balanced because Goldacre writes a column for the (sister) Guardian, then please also show me when he's been on the front page, or where an editorial has taken up his piece to correct an earlier sare and FUD article?

Tags: Autism, The Observer, MMR, Wakefield, Bad Science

British press reaction to EMI/Apple

I've stuck by my pledge to steer clear of British newspapers' technology sections. And a slight decrease in blood pressure has ensued.

However, I couldn't help come across the Guardian Editorial's curmudgeonly and ignorant commentary on the EMI/Apple announcement I covered yesterday.

Who gains from this deal? Well, the public does — a bit (my emphasis).

The public is the LARGEST beneficiary of this deal, although perhaps that is only strictly true if it is repeated by most/all of the other labels. The significance of this deal to the public is HUGE. The whole DRM edifice has had a key structural pillar removed and it will surely crumble. The key beneficiary from this has to be the law-abiding, music-lover. The secondary beneficiaries are those who innovate to make the most of this development. Apple and EMI may be two of those companies, and the bricks and mortar retailers may be the losers. But those outcomes are far from certain.

Until now, what are called digital-rights management (DRM) restrictions meant that you could buy an EMI track from Apple's music store — but you didn't really own it.

You owned it then as much as you owned it now. You could in theory (and legally) do the same with it then as you can now. Just now, it will be easier and potentially with a higher quality.

Some will not be happy at paying a premium for the privilege, especially as many smaller labels and online shops already sell music free of copy protection — and cheaper, too.

You have a choice. And if you buy an album, you pay no premium. If you buy a single you have both flexibility AND better quality. And you can move from lower quality to higher quality/noDRM by paying the difference (no additional penalty), just as you can move from buying one or two tracks to buying the whole album at no penalty (due to recent "Complete my album" feature). I am over the moon that both the restrictions are removed AND the quality is improved (the latter I did not expect).

Mr Jobs has only recently joined the chorus calling for DRM-free tracks, but this deal makes him look like a consumer champion.

Of course, Jobs' actions for Apple should be in Apple's interests as a business entity. But please name me someone/anyone in the entrenched music industry who has made this issue clearer? Do you ignore his claims that this is the way Apple wanted to do it from the start? The apparent DRM lock-in to iPod came only because of the runaway success of the iTunes/iPod phenomenon. Plenty of other companies could have made this happen then. And of course, it is not a lock-in. Jobs pointed out the futility of operating 2 business models - physical and download - in which the physical is unencumbered and the download has been loaded with restrictions.

Jobs IS a consumer champion in that he has done more for the music-loving public than any other CEO involved in the business. He has been rewarded for that by the public who have overwhelmingly chosen his products. He has been pilloried by a select group of press (concentrated somewhat in UK and Europe) who somehow resent this success. Please score Jobs next to Gates, Bronfman (Warner), Vivendi/Universal, Sony (home of Rootkit), etc. Please suggest an industry figure who should be added to that list ahead of Jobs?

Apple probably will lose some sales from iTunes, but its iPods are the real money-spinner.

I guarantee that Apple will increase its sales from iTunes as a result of this arrangement. This announcement is about levelling the playing field between physical and download. Apple's marketshare of downloads MAY decrease, but it's share of the overall music market will undoubtedly rise as barriers to buying download vs digital (or pirated of course) have been significantly changed. This one statement proves how little the Guardian understands the business it's writing about.

Furthermore, the move does NOTHING directly to help iPod sales. In fact, if anything it gives people a freedom to move away from iPod if they have (in rare cases) a substantial investment in music downloaded via iTunes. It will help iPod sales ONLY if the public perceive that the extra freedoms justify more iPod purchases either absolutely or at the expense of other players. Jobs is brave enough to see that anything that benefits the consumer CAN benefit his company if they can react well. Compare that to our Redmond-friends who take the view that the more they benefit the established oligopolies, the more they will benefit.

And, as Jupiter Research has pointed out, the format the unprotected tracks will be sold in is not supported by many digital-music players. Mr Jobs was very keen yesterday to point out that DRM-free music can be played on non-Apple machines. But that requires other manufacturers to license the technology first. So the iPod, which has already sold 90m worldwide, keeps its chokehold on the music industry for now.

Again this is just bollocks. Here is what the premier Jupiter analyst Michael Garten berg had to say. My interpretation of Michael's views are far closer to what I've written here, than the Guardian have interpreted (and I see no mention of what they quote in Michael's post).Perhaps the Guardian were the "media outlet" referred to in Michael's later post - When reporters set agendas which is truly hilarious (if not frightening)? Michael of course was a (brief) Microsoft employee, and is considered the leading Jupiter analyst in this area.

The Guardian has also written in such a way that it implies Apple is the one that grants that license or (at the very least) that there are restrictive issues involved in getting that license. It confuses the issues of the format of the tracks, the restrictions involved and the technology of the players. From a player perspective, there are many players that support the MPEG-4 Advanced Audio Codec standard (note lack of word Apple there), that Apple has CHOSEN to support and LICENSED to offer. I do not know what the licensing terms are for AAC and how they compare for instance to either MP3 or WMA. But AFAIK, anyone can license AAC should they wish to. My last 2 Nokia phones do that, so does much Sony and Sony Ericsson equipment. Even the Microsoft Zune will play AAC! Companies that have chosen not to, have made that decision deliberately and they are the fools.

If Apple had chosen to use MP3, it would have been dropping the quality of material or increasing file size even further by using 16 year old technology. AAC is the logical and approved heir to MP3. It would be like Apple bringing back the 5 1/4" floppy drive to support the laggards.

If Apple had chosen to use WMA, it would have been choosing a proprietary (though licensable) format locking people into the business practices of that well-known and convicted monopolist that is Microsoft. WMA has also been shown in numerous tests to be inferior to MPEG-4 AAC (indeed only WMA Pro which is not used by most players comes close to AAC in quality). You can find links to this on Wikipedia as easily as I did and make your own mind up. Apple has successfully taken on the proprietary WMA standard and defeated it to our long term benefit. Not by imposing it's own proprietary standard but by choosing an open standard. Try to imagine the parallel universe that is WMA-dominated (Microsoft rights, viruses, incompatibilities, etc) and you will surely see this significance. Apple was ALONE in this fight. The competition authorities should be turning on the companies that insist on licensing a proprietary standard. Any music sold in WMA format for instance should be pounced on as anti-consumer whether DRM'd or not.

In 5 years time, people will all be using the open MPEG-4 AAC with just legacy use of MP3 and maybe WMA. We will all have benefitted from that. It will be because of Apple's choices that this is the result. No other company has done more to push that better, open standard than they have (watch the same happening for MPEG-4/AVC/H.264 video).

With this move (and assuming others follow), Apple has broken the tight linkage between the selling of music online and the iPod. They had earned that linkage through doing a great job, and they have not abused that position (yet). The opportunity is out there now for other companies to innovate and offer great download services. Or, for others to innovate and offer great players that allow people to use everything they'd already bought on iTunes or used on their iPod. Or for others to provide an even better service than iTunes/iPod. There are now far less restrictions at least as far as iPod/iTunes goes. I will be able to buy my music from anyone who supports MP3 or MPEG-4 AAC and use it on my iPod or other device that supports either MPEG-4 or MP3 (you should be easily able to downconvert from AAC to MP3 with imperceptible quality loss from a 256kbps AAC file, compared with from CD). I will also be able to enjoy my purchased music from anyone who provides a player which supports these (open) standards. Sorry about the WMA-retards. You got what you deserved.

Apple has offered others the opportunity to get into the iPod world. Sure you could do that through eMusic and a few others. But they were limited by the major labels insisting on DRM. Without DRM, anyone is free to offer iTunes OR iPod users material if the licensee agrees. And this is what it has always been about - the licensee. Apple has opened the download market to anyone and there are no restrictions for those people entering the market - at least any that are governed by Apple (contrast this with Microsoft/WMA). It has done that because it has its sights set on the music market as a whole. As I said in the previous post, this is about having 30% of the music market rather than 70% of the music download market which itself is only 10% of the overall music market.

It is up to the consumer to vote with their wallets. They can support EMI's choice - either with Apple or without, and send a message to the other major labels. If enough consumers withhold support from the other labels by refusing to purchase that material (remember to boycott the CD's too if you really want change!), then perhaps the others will get that message. I, for one, will support EMI's move by choosing some of their material to buy online (it's a pity that it's so difficult with this label's rather poor roster of artists!).

I applaud Jobs and Nicoli for their actions. Sure they are self-serving. But they are self-serving because they embrace change and innovation, not because they preserve the status quo. One (Apple) is done from strength, the other (EMI) from weakness, perhaps. But they are still bold moves. WE are the main beneficiaries. Let's seize that. And, to the Guardian, perhaps if you can't comment gracefully or accurately on news you seem to have no grasp of you should perhaps just keep quiet?

Tags: Apple, EMI, DRM, WMA, AAC, iPod, Guardian

Evil Jobs screwed Pixar Shareholders

Going the rounds are the latest in the options backdating scandal. Now, Steve Jobs is accused of choosing fortuitous dates for the granting of options to some key employees at Pixar Studios (FT subscription required, but story available elsewhere)

I am very much against bosses getting rich at the expense of shareholders, and I am also (obviously) against fraudulent behaviour in the corporate world.

But the options backdating issue has gone too far and its impact is now becoming severely detrimental to businesses (and their shareholders) caught up in it. First of all, most of the stories I have seen go back sometime. A time when options were not expensed, and they were considered a key part of an employee's package. There have been changes in thinking given all sorts of corporate scandals, and that is to be welcomed. But it is neither right (unless fraud was involved) or worthwhile to be revisiting today's thinking on the past.

Employee options have been part of Silicon Valley for a longtime. As a motivation factor, most bosses wish to issue those to employees at an attractive price (in-the-money, rather than under-water) for fairly obvious reasons. It takes a huge amount of time to process an options scheme and issuance from planning to getting board approval for the scheme and to deciding who gets what and writing the detail agreements. During that time, many circumstances will change. For the most part it makes sense to choose a date that serves the (motivational) purpose, and I would argue that as long as that date is chosen between the start and end of these processes, it is quite reasonable. It would NOT be reasonable if the effect was material, and/or if fraud was involved. It would also not be reasonable if management had conspired to artificially reduce the stock price for a short period (or issued them below any recorded stock price). For issuing options to senior management, it is also obvious that board approval is a part of that process. Jobs should not have been able to issue options to himself for instance (or his senior fellow executives) without that board approval. It is the board, not the management, that is ultimately responsible to shareholders. In the case of Apple, it is not yet clear what transpired as we have only Apple's (admittedly external and supposedly independent) report to judge by. I am not judging Apple and Jobs behaviour at Apple in this post. I don't know enough to do that and I suspect most of you reading this don't either.

Just before we look at Pixar, let's consider who the victims are of options backdating. If someone gets options at an "unfair" price, the people who lose out are the shareholders. They lose out because to make good on the options for the employee the company has to buy them in at the market rate (or issue more shares thus diluting existing shareholders). Only shareholders lose out - no one else, and usually only by small amounts. I have advised a number of companies with share option schemes. In all those cases, it has taken a period of several months or longer to get them issued, and I have advised choosing as low a price as possible for those options (in the UK, the tax authorities have to approve a price anyhow - another action that takes time). Scandal? No. These are private companies and the shareholders are the very same people making the decision on issuing options to those employees. In some cases, I too have been a shareholder of that company. We have chosen the price to serve as motivation, which is the prime purpose of the scheme in the first place. As shareholders, we want our staff to be motivated, and are prepared to carry that expense personally.

So, onto Pixar. Pixar is different from Hob's examples above isn't it? It was a public company (prior to being bought by Disney). But, and this is where it is interesting, who owned the largest number of shares in Pixar?

Steve Jobs did, of course. Not just by a small margin. He owned MORE THAN HALF the company, in fact, and, in that position has plenty of rights anyway.

So, who was the biggest "victim" of Steve's generosity with John Lasseter? Steve himself - by a massive factor. He wanted those staff to be motivated, and indeed it served both him and the other shareholders well. When Disney bought Pixar, a large part of the (huge) value it paid was for the people that came with it. If Steve had feathered his own nest at Pixar by issuing options to himself (whether at favourable rates or not) then that would be an issue. But Jobs (to my knowledge) was not a recipient of any options at Pixar. Steve was just doing his job, and probably thought nothing of it. In doing his job, he certainly helped John Lasseter, but if there's a Pixar shareholder out there that thinks Steve didn't do well for them, I'd be amazed.

Oh, and one more thing. Any retribution that is made here almost certainly is a case of Peter robbing Paul. If shareholders were the ones that suffered, then taking money from shareholders funds to recompense almost certainly makes no sense. While there are some worrying examples, it seems to me that the biggest beneficiaries of the options backdating scandal are in fact the lawyers and accountants drafted in to sort this out, and the careers of federal and state prosecutors.

Tags: Apple, Pixar, Options, Steve Jobs

Even newer Getamac ads for UK (Humour)

I came across this video of comedians Lee and Herring back on the stage together. You'll have to skip to about the 1 minute 35 before it gets past the compere, but the sketch is hilarious, though not without some pretty strong language. If you know the two of them, read no further. For a bit of background read on...

I've posted here about Richard Herring before. Together with Stewart Lee (also infamous for his Jerry Springer - The Opera), they were a good comedy double act of the 90's with TV shows like "Richard, not Judy". Richard has posted a daily blog since well before blogs were fashionable, and shows up on the comedy circuit and on radio quite often. There is a bit of a long running joke of their careers nosediving a bit after their show was (unfairly perhaps) cancelled. Mitchell and Webb as featured in the new UK Apple ads are perhaps this decades closest duo to Lee and Herring, so there is a huge amount of irony in this sketch.

As an aside, its another example of how Apple is becoming so mainstream and talked about these days.

Thanks also to NotBBC for the link/video.

Tags: Apple, GetaMac, Stewart Lee, Richard Herring, Mitchell and Webb

Praise for British Journalism

I've been quick to post about poor British journalism, especially when concerned with things of an Apple nature (but certainly not exclusively). It is therefore pleasing when I can link to articles that show a good comprehension of the issues involved with excellent succinct writing.

The FT is the one example of British journalism that invariably never fails. It's understanding of the issues around Norway's (and Europe's) seeming dislike of iTunes is absolutely spot on. Unfortunately this editorial piece requires a paid subscription, but here's some excerpts:

In Norway a total monopoly on selling alcohol is legal but now Apple’s 70 per cent market share in downloaded music – which is probably only temporary – is not. Norway’s consumer ombudsman and its counterparts in Sweden, Finland, France and Germany have really not got this monopoly malarkey quite worked out.

Apple’s success in digital music is due to design, innovation and a good business model: qualities to encourage, rather than punish via questionable competition rules. Perhaps Norway needs to sort out the alcohol before worrying about the rock ’n’ roll.

In case you think the FT is too kind on Apple this paragraph also shows a keen sense of some of the issues and possible outcomes:

This does not mean that Apple is right to maintain a proprietary model: there is ample evidence that consumers benefit from open, universal standards. If there is no further innovation, and iPod remains the state of the art for years to come, then Apple might maintain an unhealthy market dominance.

But technology moves quickly in electronics. Competitors like Sony Ericsson have not yet made much of a dent in Apple’s market share, but the trend for integrating music players with mobile phones will threaten the iPod’s dominance over the next few years.

Most commentators on this issue seem to think Apple needs to make concessions. But at this time, it should make none. Concessions will not benefit the consumer, but will benefit the unreformed labels, and most importantly will play into the hands of Microsoft. Without Apple, we would now have a complete dominance of Windows Media Player - and probably back several versions too. We would have a DRM that was forced on us by Microsoft and its cozy collusion with the entertainment industry. We would have dull, clunky WMA players, with poor synchronisation and seriously restrictive DRM. This was first and foremost a war about Apple's and Microsoft's vision of digital delivery. We are just part way into that war in which Apple has scored some important victories over the massive and resource-rich Microsoft. Ultimately, a long and hard war will be to the great benefit of the consumers (and hopefully lead to a permanent business model change in the music industry). Healthy competition can benefit the consumer far more than government action (witness EU action against Microsoft which was far too late, and failed to provide any benefit to the consumer). Action unilaterally at this time against Apple is actually anti-consumer, and plays into the hands of those with most to lose.

Good work FT!

Tags: Apple, iPod, EU, Norway, FT

The Media and Science...

Heard at the end of a BBC Oxford traffic announcement while driving down from a weekend in Edinburgh (more on that soon):

Scientists say eating a Mediterranean diet reduces the risk of Alzheimers Disease; for the truth, we speak with a nutritionist.

Tags: BBC, Science, Media