Google Voice? Who really cares?

Sun, 09 Aug 2009 21:26:46 +1200

I really enjoy listening to Jason Calacanis when he’s on TWiT, and I think he generally makes a lot of sense (and considering his success, he clearly knows more than me). However, his anti-Apple rant (like so many others) is really off-base (I’m not the only one that thinks so).

There is no technical reason why the iTunes ecosystem shouldn’t allow the ability to sync with any MP3 player

The iTunes ecosystem does allow the ability to sync with any MP3 player (even more so now that music is DRM-free). You can build an application that uses the XML library description that iTunes creates to figure out where all the music/video is, and do what you like with it. The way I see it, there’s no reason that iTunes/Apple should be forced to support any MP3 player with their software. Apple clearly makes some money from the iTunes music/video sales, but it’s clearly not the main profit generator is the ecosystem - the high-margin iPods/iPhones are. Apple has spent a great deal of time and money building a store and an application to make the players more appealing. Why should any other player get to piggyback on the top of that? If (e.g.) Palm wants to create an online music store and develop an application that works with it and the Pre, then they should be able to (and I see no reason they can’t). I like iTunes more than other media applications I’ve used, but it’s certainly not perfect, and it shows that it started out as a music player and is now a great deal more. I love the iTunes Store, but Amazon completes with it (I can’t tell how well, since they won’t see to me in NZ) as does the Zune Store - which even offers a subscription model (no idea if this is available in NZ - it’s too Windows-centric for me). There’s absolutely room for someone (e.g. Palm) to build a better store (or interface with an existing one like Amazon) and built a better application. Do that, and build a better device, and you’ll get customers. Don’t expect that Apple should have to help you compete against them.

Time for change, indeed

Sat, 08 Nov 2008 23:41:48 +1200

At last, after nine years, we have the change of government we need. I think the most telling part of the results is that the winners are the parties that are willing to work with others. The Maori party will work with Labour if that’s what gets their policies advanced, but their leaders (and the constituents will eventually catch up) understand that they can advance under National as well. United Future, setting in the centre, can obviously work with anyone. ACT, even though they are not in the centre, will work with National, but also with other parties (e.g. they agree with the Maori party on many issues). National, obviously, is willing to put all of these pieces together and get something that is hopefully stronger than the individual parts. I think the TV3 commentators were wrong when they said that ACT had no power being on the right, since National has the Maori party on the centre. The Greens had a significant influence on Labour, even though they are less centre. ACT will be no different, and have their 5-seat influence. The Greens show up as the real losers. They ended up with more seats, but no power. If they were willing to work with National, like the Maori party are, then they could get things achieved, and appear more magnanimous as well. I really hope that some day the Green party wakes up and realises that caring about environmental issues is not a left or right issue, and straddles both. National and ACT would do positive things for sustainability & general environment issues by actually getting something done. Why is that so much worse than Labour doing positive things by doing a great deal of talking and planning? Why should one’s position in the debate over climate change have anything to do with whether you care about the environment or not? The other thing that the TV3 commentators got wrong was Clark’s speech - she wasn’t that gracious. She pointedly attacked the National policies. If she was gracious, she could have said something like “I hope that when we come back in 2011 National have managed to safeguard all of the improvements we have made over the last nine years”. Polite about National, but not praising them (just “safeguard”, not improve in any way), but not attacking either, and still putting in the note about the ‘achievements’ that Labour has managed. Key was a much more gracious winner than Clark a gracious loser. It’s not the result that I was hoping for, but I do hope that Key manages to do a good job, and the meme that I certainly agree with is that this is how democracy works. Although I’m on one end of the new government’s policies, I respect that there are others who are on the other side and we can achieve greatness together. Certainly if Key succeeds (with the Maori party included), then Labour is in a very tight position for 2011 (no NZ First, maybe no United Future, no guarantee of Maori party support, maybe no Progressives, no clear leader yet). If the Maori party are included (and I hope they are), then it’s the first real MMP government (in my opinion), too - with four parties (National, ACT, United, Maori) working together for real progress. Hopefully National and Labour will both continue to decrease in numbers, and we’ll have a real multi-party government one day. I wonder if house prices in Australia just dropped ;)

Politics on Tony Andrew Meyer

Google Voice? Who really cares?

Time for change, indeed