May be we will have to rethink our life, our habits, our tastes.
Gone are the days in which we only had one TV channel and transmissions began at 5 p.m and finished at 12 p.m.
At that time TV was really popular.
People used to complain because it "killed conversation" "divided families" "brought wars among relatives".
We had only one program to look at, but WE LOOKED AT IT.
That time is finished.
No quarreling, because everybody has his own TV, we have one million channels and finally we stopped arguing about TV and began again talking, because nobody is really looking at it.
Americans have the chance to register one thousand programs everyday, that they cannot look at, because otherwise, where would they find the time to delete them all?
That IS A HARD JOB.
You have to read what it is, to see a small piece of it, and then discharge it.
When you arrive to the end of the list, it is already time to go to bed and reprogram your TIVO.
Tomorrow the pattern will repeat itself.
But that is the beauty of it: YOU can finally choose, no more "one-size-fits-all"
Monday, March 27, 2006
Sunday, March 26, 2006
TV on a cell phone
Lately it looks like some big enterprise short of new ideas tries to remix the old business.
No matter if it is complete nonsense.
Since long reality has proved that the winning business was not the best, but the best commercialized.
They think if you invest in commercial a decent sum and you can wait as long as it needs, then, whatever you plan, becomes reality.
You make a succesful website and there are billions looming on the horizon.
You propose a new service and there are millions willing to buy and use it.
Like TV on a portable phone.
I think that sometimes they count too much on people's stupidity.
May be that too has limits...( at least in the number).
No matter if it is complete nonsense.
Since long reality has proved that the winning business was not the best, but the best commercialized.
They think if you invest in commercial a decent sum and you can wait as long as it needs, then, whatever you plan, becomes reality.
You make a succesful website and there are billions looming on the horizon.
You propose a new service and there are millions willing to buy and use it.
Like TV on a portable phone.
I think that sometimes they count too much on people's stupidity.
May be that too has limits...( at least in the number).
Saturday, March 25, 2006
People Versus Telcos
"According to a Wall Street Journal article, Verizon has agreed to pay about $.50 per subscriber to CBS “for the right to carry its television stations on Verizon's fledgling home TV service…”. The companies themselves have not disclosed the terms of the deal either than to say it is mutually advantageous (gee) but WSJ apparently has sources. Most other media simply carried the bland AP version of the story which did not mention this payment.
No one will hook up to a network without content. In this sense, at&t and other are lucky that service providers like Google and Vonage and Skype provide their content and services on the Internet model which does NOT include charging the network operator. In fact, these services do pay for their own connections to the network. And the availability of content and services is the reason we subscribers pay to hook up. Would you buy general purpose Internet access without Google? Would you buy Internet access on which certain popular websites were slow or where your choice of VoIP providers was restricted? NOT IN A COMPETIVE MARKET."
There are more than one business model to broadcast TV or content to consumers.
One is the traditional TV, in which broadcasters pay frequences to the State ( or bandwidth to the satellite provider) and get paid with commercials or if broadcasted without commercials, the customer has to pay for the content he receives (usually Movies, Sport events, Documentaries).
Besides that the user in Europe still has to pay a fee to the State just because he has the gut to own a TV.
Then we have other two networks.
The Telephone Network in which the users pay to use the lines that belong to the telcos, either for minutes or as a flat fee.
The Internet Network in which the users pay for the use of the line, either per minutes or a flat rate.
The price differs depending on the speed of the connection, that is depending how many people share the same pipe.
The content broadcaster, as in the TV network, pays for the bandwidth he uses to broadcast his content, whatever it can be.
So, legally speaking, the model proposed by the Telcos has NO JUSTIFICATION.
It is like charging twice for the same thing.
I understand that Governments can be on the side of the Telcos: WHEN did they loose a chance to fuck the people????
And this is going to be a big chance.
My proposal:
Let's not look at that shit of TV on the usual network and on the Internet Netwok.
Let's them pay to broadcast, let us build our own content...
Internet users, I know out there is a huge number of artists who can produce much better content than the one they are trying to fill us with...
Let us build a new democratic network, in which there is no place for fucking monopolists, fucking polititians, fucking Murdochs and Belusconis...
Let's begin the WAR!!! WE WILL BE THE WINNER!! WE ARE THE NUMBER!!!
WHAT WOULD TELCOS DO WITH ALL THEIR CONNETTIVITY WITHOUT USERS?
No one will hook up to a network without content. In this sense, at&t and other are lucky that service providers like Google and Vonage and Skype provide their content and services on the Internet model which does NOT include charging the network operator. In fact, these services do pay for their own connections to the network. And the availability of content and services is the reason we subscribers pay to hook up. Would you buy general purpose Internet access without Google? Would you buy Internet access on which certain popular websites were slow or where your choice of VoIP providers was restricted? NOT IN A COMPETIVE MARKET."
There are more than one business model to broadcast TV or content to consumers.
One is the traditional TV, in which broadcasters pay frequences to the State ( or bandwidth to the satellite provider) and get paid with commercials or if broadcasted without commercials, the customer has to pay for the content he receives (usually Movies, Sport events, Documentaries).
Besides that the user in Europe still has to pay a fee to the State just because he has the gut to own a TV.
Then we have other two networks.
The Telephone Network in which the users pay to use the lines that belong to the telcos, either for minutes or as a flat fee.
The Internet Network in which the users pay for the use of the line, either per minutes or a flat rate.
The price differs depending on the speed of the connection, that is depending how many people share the same pipe.
The content broadcaster, as in the TV network, pays for the bandwidth he uses to broadcast his content, whatever it can be.
So, legally speaking, the model proposed by the Telcos has NO JUSTIFICATION.
It is like charging twice for the same thing.
I understand that Governments can be on the side of the Telcos: WHEN did they loose a chance to fuck the people????
And this is going to be a big chance.
My proposal:
Let's not look at that shit of TV on the usual network and on the Internet Netwok.
Let's them pay to broadcast, let us build our own content...
Internet users, I know out there is a huge number of artists who can produce much better content than the one they are trying to fill us with...
Let us build a new democratic network, in which there is no place for fucking monopolists, fucking polititians, fucking Murdochs and Belusconis...
Let's begin the WAR!!! WE WILL BE THE WINNER!! WE ARE THE NUMBER!!!
WHAT WOULD TELCOS DO WITH ALL THEIR CONNETTIVITY WITHOUT USERS?
Friday, March 24, 2006
WiFi Broaband o banda larga su Wi Fi in Piemonte
Egr. Dott. Bairati,
la prego di scusarmi se le rubo un po' del suo tempo prezioso.
Ma vede, lei e' l'unico che e' stato cosi' gentile da ascoltarmi ed e' quindi l'unico a cui possa rivolgermi.
La situazione della Banda Larga a Sanfre' e in tutti gli altri piccoli centri continua ad essere disastrosa, in quanto non solo non e' arrivata, ma non si fanno neppure previsioni sul quando etc...
Io capisco che un privato prima di fare degli investimenti (anche minimi) pensa ad un possibile ritorno.
Spesso i suoi calcoli sono sbagliati e vanno nella direzione opposta, ma E' una loro decisione e soprattutto sono capitali loro...
Durante il nostro breve incontro un suo tecnico mi aveva illustrato alcuni progetti regionali di broadband WiFi.
Il sistema Wimax e il BPL (broadband on power line) sono entusiasmanti e avveneristici, ma per il momento promettono molto, molto di piu' di quanto sono in grado di dare.
Noi abbiamo fatto una installazione di Wimax in Canada l'anno scorso, ma, pur essendo fatta a regola d'arte, l'unico risultato e' stato quello di perdere il probabile cliente, che si e' poi rivolto al solito WiFi di hot spots.
Questo infatti e' il trend attuale negli Stati Uniti e l'unico che, con molti limiti, permette una certa connessione WiFi.
Il Wimax presenta per l'Europa il limite della frequenza di 2,4 GHz che e' troppo alta e il costo eccesivo del CPE.
Un investimento da parte dell'utilizzatore di $1000 non puo' essere competitivo con un modem per la DSL, per cui il successo sarebbe comunque limitato.
C'e' in commercio un sistema nuovissimo, che consente da un lato una copertura fino a 250 Km.e dall'altro un investimento di pochi euro per una scheda o un modem WIFi.
Ma il lato negativo e' che, per avere un'ampia copertura necessita di una frequenza piu' bassa, diciamo 1.79 o 1.9 o 2.2 GHz che peraltro mi sembra siano inutilizzate.
Ora la mia domanda:
Sarebbe possibile per la Regione Piemonte e per l'uso esclusivo dei Piemontesi riservare queste frequenze?
L'investimento regionale sarebbe ridottissimo.
La Banda Larga raggiungerebbe posti inaccessibili.
Il sistema sarebbe WiFi, il che significa che l'utilizzatore piemontese potrebbe muoversi su un territorio di 250 Km. con la stessa connessione.
Si potrebbe usare localmente il VoIP, l'educazione a distanza, il commercio online, il bradcast di trasmissioni regionali a costi ridottissimi.
Si creerebbero moltissimi posti di lavoro e soprattutto il Piemonte raggiungerebbe in pochissimo tempo la globalita' che il resto dell'Europa non riesce a raggiungere.
Il tutto con una frequenza...
Ora, io sono digiuna di norme e leggi, ma forse Lei ha qualcuno che potrebbe trovare il mezzo...
In fondo sarebbe a favore dei Piemontesi e forse col tempo trasferirebbe il traffico voce dai nocivi Mast a Microonde alle innocue onde radio.
Anche questo aspetto non e' da sottovalutare.
Se la mia proposta puo' essere di un qualche interesse, la prego, ci faccia parlare con un esperto in materia, forse saremo in grado di convincerlo, soprattutto se parla inglese o tedesco (le lingue di mio marito).
La ringrazio per il tempo che mi ha dedicato e le auguro una buona giornata.
Saluti dalla Provincia
Fulvia Patrizia Demaria Broghammer
la prego di scusarmi se le rubo un po' del suo tempo prezioso.
Ma vede, lei e' l'unico che e' stato cosi' gentile da ascoltarmi ed e' quindi l'unico a cui possa rivolgermi.
La situazione della Banda Larga a Sanfre' e in tutti gli altri piccoli centri continua ad essere disastrosa, in quanto non solo non e' arrivata, ma non si fanno neppure previsioni sul quando etc...
Io capisco che un privato prima di fare degli investimenti (anche minimi) pensa ad un possibile ritorno.
Spesso i suoi calcoli sono sbagliati e vanno nella direzione opposta, ma E' una loro decisione e soprattutto sono capitali loro...
Durante il nostro breve incontro un suo tecnico mi aveva illustrato alcuni progetti regionali di broadband WiFi.
Il sistema Wimax e il BPL (broadband on power line) sono entusiasmanti e avveneristici, ma per il momento promettono molto, molto di piu' di quanto sono in grado di dare.
Noi abbiamo fatto una installazione di Wimax in Canada l'anno scorso, ma, pur essendo fatta a regola d'arte, l'unico risultato e' stato quello di perdere il probabile cliente, che si e' poi rivolto al solito WiFi di hot spots.
Questo infatti e' il trend attuale negli Stati Uniti e l'unico che, con molti limiti, permette una certa connessione WiFi.
Il Wimax presenta per l'Europa il limite della frequenza di 2,4 GHz che e' troppo alta e il costo eccesivo del CPE.
Un investimento da parte dell'utilizzatore di $1000 non puo' essere competitivo con un modem per la DSL, per cui il successo sarebbe comunque limitato.
C'e' in commercio un sistema nuovissimo, che consente da un lato una copertura fino a 250 Km.e dall'altro un investimento di pochi euro per una scheda o un modem WIFi.
Ma il lato negativo e' che, per avere un'ampia copertura necessita di una frequenza piu' bassa, diciamo 1.79 o 1.9 o 2.2 GHz che peraltro mi sembra siano inutilizzate.
Ora la mia domanda:
Sarebbe possibile per la Regione Piemonte e per l'uso esclusivo dei Piemontesi riservare queste frequenze?
L'investimento regionale sarebbe ridottissimo.
La Banda Larga raggiungerebbe posti inaccessibili.
Il sistema sarebbe WiFi, il che significa che l'utilizzatore piemontese potrebbe muoversi su un territorio di 250 Km. con la stessa connessione.
Si potrebbe usare localmente il VoIP, l'educazione a distanza, il commercio online, il bradcast di trasmissioni regionali a costi ridottissimi.
Si creerebbero moltissimi posti di lavoro e soprattutto il Piemonte raggiungerebbe in pochissimo tempo la globalita' che il resto dell'Europa non riesce a raggiungere.
Il tutto con una frequenza...
Ora, io sono digiuna di norme e leggi, ma forse Lei ha qualcuno che potrebbe trovare il mezzo...
In fondo sarebbe a favore dei Piemontesi e forse col tempo trasferirebbe il traffico voce dai nocivi Mast a Microonde alle innocue onde radio.
Anche questo aspetto non e' da sottovalutare.
Se la mia proposta puo' essere di un qualche interesse, la prego, ci faccia parlare con un esperto in materia, forse saremo in grado di convincerlo, soprattutto se parla inglese o tedesco (le lingue di mio marito).
La ringrazio per il tempo che mi ha dedicato e le auguro una buona giornata.
Saluti dalla Provincia
Fulvia Patrizia Demaria Broghammer
Andrea Bairati
Egr. Dott. Bairati,
la prego di scusarmi se le rubo un po' del suo tempo prezioso.
Ma vede, lei e' l'unico che e' stato cosi' gentile da ascoltarmi ed e' quindi l'unico a cui possa rivolgermi.
La situazione della Banda Larga a Sanfre' e in tutti gli altri piccoli centri continua ad essere disastrosa, in quanto non solo non e' arrivata, ma non si fanno neppure previsioni sul quando etc...
Io capisco che un privato prima di fare degli investimenti (anche minimi) pensa ad un possibile ritorno.
Spesso i suoi calcoli sono sbagliati e vanno nella direzione opposta, ma E' una loro decisione e soprattutto sono capitali loro...
Durante il nostro breve incontro un suo tecnico mi aveva illustrato alcuni progetti regionali di broadband WiFi.
Il sistema Wimax e il BPL (broadband on power line) sono entusiasmanti e avveneristici, ma per il momento promettono molto, molto di piu' di quanto sono in grado di dare.
Noi abbiamo fatto una installazione di Wimax in Canada l'anno scorso, ma, pur essendo fatta a regola d'arte, l'unico risultato e' stato quello di perdere il probabile cliente, che si e' poi rivolto al solito WiFi di hot spots.
Questo infatti e' il trend attuale negli Stati Uniti e l'unico che, con molti limiti, permette una certa connessione WiFi.
Il Wimax presenta per l'Europa il limite della frequenza di 2,4 GHz che e' troppo alta e il costo eccesivo del CPE.
Un investimento da parte dell'utilizzatore di $1000 non puo' essere competitivo con un modem per la DSL, per cui il successo sarebbe comunque limitato.
C'e' in commercio un sistema nuovissimo, che consente da un lato una copertura fino a 250 Km.e dall'altro un investimento di pochi euro per una scheda o un modem WIFi.
Ma il lato negativo e' che, per avere un'ampia copertura necessita di una frequenza piu' bassa, diciamo 1.79 o 1.9 o 2.2 GHz che peraltro mi sembra siano inutilizzate.
Ora la mia domanda:
Sarebbe possibile per la Regione Piemonte e per l'uso esclusivo dei Piemontesi riservare queste frequenze?
L'investimento regionale sarebbe ridottissimo.
La Banda Larga raggiungerebbe posti inaccessibili.
Il sistema sarebbe WiFi, il che significa che l'utilizzatore piemontese potrebbe muoversi su un territorio di 250 Km. con la stessa connessione.
Si potrebbe usare localmente il VoIP, l'educazione a distanza, il commercio online, il bradcast di trasmissioni regionali a costi ridottissimi.
Si creerebbero moltissimi posti di lavoro e soprattutto il Piemonte raggiungerebbe in pochissimo tempo la globalita' che il resto dell'Europa non riesce a raggiungere.
Il tutto con una frequenza...
Ora, io sono digiuna di norme e leggi, ma forse Lei ha qualcuno che potrebbe trovare il mezzo...
In fondo sarebbe a favore dei Piemontesi e forse col tempo trasferirebbe il traffico voce dai nocivi Mast a Microonde alle innocue onde radio.
Anche questo aspetto non e' da sottovalutare.
Se la mia proposta puo' essere di un qualche interesse, la prego, ci faccia parlare con un esperto in materia, forse saremo in grado di convincerlo, soprattutto se parla inglese o tedesco (le lingue di mio marito).
La ringrazio per il tempo che mi ha dedicato e le auguro una buona giornata.
Saluti dalla Provincia
Fulvia Patrizia Demaria Broghammer
la prego di scusarmi se le rubo un po' del suo tempo prezioso.
Ma vede, lei e' l'unico che e' stato cosi' gentile da ascoltarmi ed e' quindi l'unico a cui possa rivolgermi.
La situazione della Banda Larga a Sanfre' e in tutti gli altri piccoli centri continua ad essere disastrosa, in quanto non solo non e' arrivata, ma non si fanno neppure previsioni sul quando etc...
Io capisco che un privato prima di fare degli investimenti (anche minimi) pensa ad un possibile ritorno.
Spesso i suoi calcoli sono sbagliati e vanno nella direzione opposta, ma E' una loro decisione e soprattutto sono capitali loro...
Durante il nostro breve incontro un suo tecnico mi aveva illustrato alcuni progetti regionali di broadband WiFi.
Il sistema Wimax e il BPL (broadband on power line) sono entusiasmanti e avveneristici, ma per il momento promettono molto, molto di piu' di quanto sono in grado di dare.
Noi abbiamo fatto una installazione di Wimax in Canada l'anno scorso, ma, pur essendo fatta a regola d'arte, l'unico risultato e' stato quello di perdere il probabile cliente, che si e' poi rivolto al solito WiFi di hot spots.
Questo infatti e' il trend attuale negli Stati Uniti e l'unico che, con molti limiti, permette una certa connessione WiFi.
Il Wimax presenta per l'Europa il limite della frequenza di 2,4 GHz che e' troppo alta e il costo eccesivo del CPE.
Un investimento da parte dell'utilizzatore di $1000 non puo' essere competitivo con un modem per la DSL, per cui il successo sarebbe comunque limitato.
C'e' in commercio un sistema nuovissimo, che consente da un lato una copertura fino a 250 Km.e dall'altro un investimento di pochi euro per una scheda o un modem WIFi.
Ma il lato negativo e' che, per avere un'ampia copertura necessita di una frequenza piu' bassa, diciamo 1.79 o 1.9 o 2.2 GHz che peraltro mi sembra siano inutilizzate.
Ora la mia domanda:
Sarebbe possibile per la Regione Piemonte e per l'uso esclusivo dei Piemontesi riservare queste frequenze?
L'investimento regionale sarebbe ridottissimo.
La Banda Larga raggiungerebbe posti inaccessibili.
Il sistema sarebbe WiFi, il che significa che l'utilizzatore piemontese potrebbe muoversi su un territorio di 250 Km. con la stessa connessione.
Si potrebbe usare localmente il VoIP, l'educazione a distanza, il commercio online, il bradcast di trasmissioni regionali a costi ridottissimi.
Si creerebbero moltissimi posti di lavoro e soprattutto il Piemonte raggiungerebbe in pochissimo tempo la globalita' che il resto dell'Europa non riesce a raggiungere.
Il tutto con una frequenza...
Ora, io sono digiuna di norme e leggi, ma forse Lei ha qualcuno che potrebbe trovare il mezzo...
In fondo sarebbe a favore dei Piemontesi e forse col tempo trasferirebbe il traffico voce dai nocivi Mast a Microonde alle innocue onde radio.
Anche questo aspetto non e' da sottovalutare.
Se la mia proposta puo' essere di un qualche interesse, la prego, ci faccia parlare con un esperto in materia, forse saremo in grado di convincerlo, soprattutto se parla inglese o tedesco (le lingue di mio marito).
La ringrazio per il tempo che mi ha dedicato e le auguro una buona giornata.
Saluti dalla Provincia
Fulvia Patrizia Demaria Broghammer
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Homo Homini lupus
"You can organize societies that espouse, promote, even glorify, one Homo sapiens's boot crushing another Homo sapiens's face for all eternity"
We are not far from that:
"I'm more and more convinced that the markets (I'm really just stressing the stock markets now) are a brilliant way to swindle the masses of their money.
Now consider how much any single stock investment will be worth over the long haul.
Aren't we in the end, just gambling when we 'invest' in the market?
After all, we are betting that we can sell the stock at a higher value than which we bought it. We can be sure, that one day, the stock will be worthless. So effectively, all stocks are ultimately worthless.
So we buy worthless stocks, in hopes of unloading them to another sucker at a higher price?
We are not far from that:
"I'm more and more convinced that the markets (I'm really just stressing the stock markets now) are a brilliant way to swindle the masses of their money.
Now consider how much any single stock investment will be worth over the long haul.
Aren't we in the end, just gambling when we 'invest' in the market?
After all, we are betting that we can sell the stock at a higher value than which we bought it. We can be sure, that one day, the stock will be worthless. So effectively, all stocks are ultimately worthless.
So we buy worthless stocks, in hopes of unloading them to another sucker at a higher price?
The right price of oil
"Recently, I started asking people important questions - as expected, folks don't know jack-shit. Not even Kunstler knows -
How much energy do you get out of a barrel of oil, provided you use it properly (in joels, or in KW, I don't care).
How many trees (how many pounds of wood) would you have to cut down and burn in order to get the same amount of energy?
How many pounds of coal?
How much energy does an eight-car passenger train requires to travel one mile?
Knowing the answers would put things in perspective, at least for me. But you know what? Even f**cking scientists don't know shit anymore."
I humbly try to give an answer.
It looks to me that the answer to the question depends on the beholder's needs.
If he has a lot of oil or coal or whatever to sell and doesn't care for its price, then the output is negligible.
It doesn't matter how many trees, the important is that everybody burns them.
But if the price has to be higher, then there comes the shortage of oil, trees and coal...
People may not know the value, but certainly know the price...
How much energy do you get out of a barrel of oil, provided you use it properly (in joels, or in KW, I don't care).
How many trees (how many pounds of wood) would you have to cut down and burn in order to get the same amount of energy?
How many pounds of coal?
How much energy does an eight-car passenger train requires to travel one mile?
Knowing the answers would put things in perspective, at least for me. But you know what? Even f**cking scientists don't know shit anymore."
I humbly try to give an answer.
It looks to me that the answer to the question depends on the beholder's needs.
If he has a lot of oil or coal or whatever to sell and doesn't care for its price, then the output is negligible.
It doesn't matter how many trees, the important is that everybody burns them.
But if the price has to be higher, then there comes the shortage of oil, trees and coal...
People may not know the value, but certainly know the price...
Being a citizen
"The State was created to protect the rights of its citizens, not the other way around. My rights as a human being have precedence over the ability of the State to legislate even if this legislation purports to achieve the common good. The State, in short, serves as a vehicle to the fulfilment of my rights, not the other way around."
That is what we expect and were brought up to believe.
That is what we should work for, live for.
But it looks more and more the "other way round"
That is what we expect and were brought up to believe.
That is what we should work for, live for.
But it looks more and more the "other way round"
Monday, March 20, 2006
Real Estate bubble market
"You wonder, finally, how many current homeowners will lose their houses? How many developers will lose the shirts off their backs? How many banks will get stuck with foreclosed property? And how will the United States economy function without a phony-balony real estate bubble market driving it?"
A man who wishes to borrow 10 dollars is a beggar, a man who needs 5'000'000 dollars is-obviously- a serious business man.
But the moral of this tale goes further.
The weak man is kicked around and despised until he becomes VERY weak.
A man who owes his bank 5000 dollars gets rude letters and threats.
But if you are unable to give back 500'000 dollars you are in a commanding position.
No small bank manager likes to report to head office that he had made a silly misjudgment, lent without security and lost a lot of money.
On a different level: there are a lot of Third World countries that are, they say, almost bankrupt: at the same time they have only to whistle to get a few more billions from the World Bank and others because their bankruptcy would cause havoc and ruin on the international money market and many large banks would fail all over the world.
Their only strength is their weakness.
Weakness rules the world.
But it is not so easy to be weak.
To achieve real, heart-rendering weakness requires a certain type of character, a certain amount of cunning and, in most cases, a great deal of bad luck.
Fortune is a whimsical deity and she frowns only on the chosen few.
A man who wishes to borrow 10 dollars is a beggar, a man who needs 5'000'000 dollars is-obviously- a serious business man.
But the moral of this tale goes further.
The weak man is kicked around and despised until he becomes VERY weak.
A man who owes his bank 5000 dollars gets rude letters and threats.
But if you are unable to give back 500'000 dollars you are in a commanding position.
No small bank manager likes to report to head office that he had made a silly misjudgment, lent without security and lost a lot of money.
On a different level: there are a lot of Third World countries that are, they say, almost bankrupt: at the same time they have only to whistle to get a few more billions from the World Bank and others because their bankruptcy would cause havoc and ruin on the international money market and many large banks would fail all over the world.
Their only strength is their weakness.
Weakness rules the world.
But it is not so easy to be weak.
To achieve real, heart-rendering weakness requires a certain type of character, a certain amount of cunning and, in most cases, a great deal of bad luck.
Fortune is a whimsical deity and she frowns only on the chosen few.
IP TV
"Most video enters the system at the telco's national headend, where network feeds are pulled from satellites and encoded if necessary (often in MPEG-2, though H.264 and Windows Media are also possibilities). The video stream is broken up into IP packets and dumped into the telco's core network, which is a massive IP network that handles all sorts of other traffic (data, voice, etc.) in addition to the video. Here the advantages of owning the entire network from stem to stern (as the telcos do) really come into play, since quality of service (QoS) tools can prioritize the video traffic to prevent delay or fragmentation of the signal. Without control of the network, this would be dicey, since QoS requests are not often recognized between operators. With end-to-end control, the telcos can guarantee enough bandwidth for their signal at all times, which is key to providing the "just works" reliability consumers have come to expect from their television sets."
This is really what we DO NOT NEED.
The Telcos have already the Communications Monopoly, now they aim to have the Broadcasting Monopoly.
This is really what we DO NOT NEED.
The Telcos have already the Communications Monopoly, now they aim to have the Broadcasting Monopoly.
Friday, March 17, 2006
The new Internet economy
The new economy born with the Internet is shaped around buyers, not sellers.
It is and it always was the main rule of the market: buyers are the first source of money, THEY ARE THE MONEY.
They are there, looking and SEARCHING.
You do not need marketing on the NET, you already have a MARKET.
In the new type of market born with the Internet, the buyers notify the market of the intent to buy, and sellers compete for the buyer's purchase.
As simple as that.
The new Internet economy is much more than transactions.
Conversations matter. So do relationships.
Those virtues are looked for and showed by sellers (as well as buyers) and not just "branded" by sellers.
The Internet Market is about buyers finding sellers, not sellers looking for or "alluring" buyers.
So, how will commercials have to be?
1) Easy to be found by eventual buyers.
2) Entertaining.
3) Showing.
4) The purchase must be easy to purchase.
5) The delivery must be fast and cheap (not needing too much bandwidth).
Rules change, opportunities are there.
The Internet market is more than ever the "brain" economy against the "giants".
Small birds against dinosaurs.
The fastest and most effective will be the winner, but the real winner will be the buyer.
Cheaper goods, cheaper delivery, huge selection.
It is and it always was the main rule of the market: buyers are the first source of money, THEY ARE THE MONEY.
They are there, looking and SEARCHING.
You do not need marketing on the NET, you already have a MARKET.
In the new type of market born with the Internet, the buyers notify the market of the intent to buy, and sellers compete for the buyer's purchase.
As simple as that.
The new Internet economy is much more than transactions.
Conversations matter. So do relationships.
Those virtues are looked for and showed by sellers (as well as buyers) and not just "branded" by sellers.
The Internet Market is about buyers finding sellers, not sellers looking for or "alluring" buyers.
So, how will commercials have to be?
1) Easy to be found by eventual buyers.
2) Entertaining.
3) Showing.
4) The purchase must be easy to purchase.
5) The delivery must be fast and cheap (not needing too much bandwidth).
Rules change, opportunities are there.
The Internet market is more than ever the "brain" economy against the "giants".
Small birds against dinosaurs.
The fastest and most effective will be the winner, but the real winner will be the buyer.
Cheaper goods, cheaper delivery, huge selection.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Berlusconi versus Prodi
In Italy it is always election time, except when we have to mourn a Pope or we are waiting for white smoke in the Vatican.
The main concern of every political man in Italy is not what to do to help the Italian citizen, but how to convince him to vote on the coming next elections.
So between one election and the other there is ALWAYS a period of “pre elections”.
But this is the most exciting phase of it: the real, close the election, pre election time.
The fundamental concept of Italian Political life was the many-party system.
Following real democratic spirit, everybody was able to have his voice heard, no matter how small he was.
And this is the first change of the last period.
We aim to have, like the rest of the world, two parties fighting against each other.
To do that, all the small converge in a “Union”.
The essence of the two-party system is that there are either 500 parties or one; but never, in any circumstances, are there two.
To explain: both parties reflect such a vast spectrum of opinion from left to right that the left wings of both parties are poles apart from their right wings and in no other country would politicians ideologically so remote from each other even dream of belonging to the same political organization.
You may say that while the Left party has a few real leftists and the Liberals a few real rightists, the rest of the two parties simply overlap and one single party would do quite adequately instead of two.
But there is nothing illogical in this. In most cases it does not really matter which party you belong to.
Once it was different.
At that time the Left really had a Program and carried it out.
The trouble was that they did not have ENOUGH program and used up the little they had too quickly.
Then they started to scratch their heads in amazement: what to do next?
While scratching they fell from power.
A violent dispute ensued.
While dispute is still raging and while some Socialists are still trying to convince one another that their leader would be more at home in the Liberal Party, the Liberals are carrying on a normal and by no means extremist socialist policy.
They speak of the blessings of the Welfare State as if they had not opposed it tooth and nail; they assure us in all their manifestos that they are doing more for the poor, the old age pensioners, the down trodden, the workers, the underdogs.
In other words, they are riding on the crest of world prosperity, and they are pretty good riders.
A Liberal becoming a Socialist would be a normal phenomenon in any country; for a Socialist to become a Liberal would be nonsense anywhere else.
It is absolute nonsense in Italy too, but absolute nonsense is the normal run of things here.
Indeed, the customary reward for a life spent in a determined fight against privilege, seems to be an elevation to be able to enjoy all privileges (including high salaries and high pensions, besides ALL THE REST)
Suddenly you may realize-as I did- the devilish pattern behind it all.
The Socialist party, for once, is being really Machiavellian.
As they are obviously, or so it seems, unable to take over from the Liberals through elections, they enforce a Change of The Status Quo by more subtle methods: they let the Liberals carry out a Socialist policy while they gradually and most unnoticed form the new aristocracy and gain new privileges.
The main concern of every political man in Italy is not what to do to help the Italian citizen, but how to convince him to vote on the coming next elections.
So between one election and the other there is ALWAYS a period of “pre elections”.
But this is the most exciting phase of it: the real, close the election, pre election time.
The fundamental concept of Italian Political life was the many-party system.
Following real democratic spirit, everybody was able to have his voice heard, no matter how small he was.
And this is the first change of the last period.
We aim to have, like the rest of the world, two parties fighting against each other.
To do that, all the small converge in a “Union”.
The essence of the two-party system is that there are either 500 parties or one; but never, in any circumstances, are there two.
To explain: both parties reflect such a vast spectrum of opinion from left to right that the left wings of both parties are poles apart from their right wings and in no other country would politicians ideologically so remote from each other even dream of belonging to the same political organization.
You may say that while the Left party has a few real leftists and the Liberals a few real rightists, the rest of the two parties simply overlap and one single party would do quite adequately instead of two.
But there is nothing illogical in this. In most cases it does not really matter which party you belong to.
Once it was different.
At that time the Left really had a Program and carried it out.
The trouble was that they did not have ENOUGH program and used up the little they had too quickly.
Then they started to scratch their heads in amazement: what to do next?
While scratching they fell from power.
A violent dispute ensued.
While dispute is still raging and while some Socialists are still trying to convince one another that their leader would be more at home in the Liberal Party, the Liberals are carrying on a normal and by no means extremist socialist policy.
They speak of the blessings of the Welfare State as if they had not opposed it tooth and nail; they assure us in all their manifestos that they are doing more for the poor, the old age pensioners, the down trodden, the workers, the underdogs.
In other words, they are riding on the crest of world prosperity, and they are pretty good riders.
A Liberal becoming a Socialist would be a normal phenomenon in any country; for a Socialist to become a Liberal would be nonsense anywhere else.
It is absolute nonsense in Italy too, but absolute nonsense is the normal run of things here.
Indeed, the customary reward for a life spent in a determined fight against privilege, seems to be an elevation to be able to enjoy all privileges (including high salaries and high pensions, besides ALL THE REST)
Suddenly you may realize-as I did- the devilish pattern behind it all.
The Socialist party, for once, is being really Machiavellian.
As they are obviously, or so it seems, unable to take over from the Liberals through elections, they enforce a Change of The Status Quo by more subtle methods: they let the Liberals carry out a Socialist policy while they gradually and most unnoticed form the new aristocracy and gain new privileges.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Content counts...
So who needs streaming video on the Internet?
People do not want to spend costly bandwidth to be able to look at what they are not looking at on the TV screen.
People don't want to be entertained on their Internet connection. They want to be connected.
At the computer fair Cebit in Germany are now presented complete packages for fast InterNet, television and telephone.
In France the wave under the key word Triple Play already rolls since one and a half years.
A furioser competition around best contents and possible use of the technology was inflamed there.
But the customer is still on bait.
Convergence is one thing and use of the Internet for the wrong purpose is another side of the coin.
Centralized Broadcasting TV on the Internet at the expenses of costly and valuable bandwidth with uncertain results and certain lower image quality, is without any doubt utterly stupid.
And I do not even dream of talking about streaming video on a portable phone.
A phone is for talking and the Internet is first and foremost an interactive way for data transmission.
The perfect and economical way to transport and stream the user's content.
Triple play, but in an intelligent way.
People do not want to spend costly bandwidth to be able to look at what they are not looking at on the TV screen.
People don't want to be entertained on their Internet connection. They want to be connected.
At the computer fair Cebit in Germany are now presented complete packages for fast InterNet, television and telephone.
In France the wave under the key word Triple Play already rolls since one and a half years.
A furioser competition around best contents and possible use of the technology was inflamed there.
But the customer is still on bait.
Convergence is one thing and use of the Internet for the wrong purpose is another side of the coin.
Centralized Broadcasting TV on the Internet at the expenses of costly and valuable bandwidth with uncertain results and certain lower image quality, is without any doubt utterly stupid.
And I do not even dream of talking about streaming video on a portable phone.
A phone is for talking and the Internet is first and foremost an interactive way for data transmission.
The perfect and economical way to transport and stream the user's content.
Triple play, but in an intelligent way.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
The Content Revolution
"Sites like Myspace are rebuilding our world” because they provide a means for anyone who has anything to share to do so. “What we are seeing today is an almost continuing talent show.”
What has really changed is the nature of publishing, a “Gutenbergian transformation” that involves both tools and distribution."
“If the user wants to be both author and editor, and technology is increasingly enabling this, what will be the role of the media company?"
The "Media Company" will have a total different meaning.
We are used to centralized delivery of content.But this kind of content is expensive to produce. The sports stars, reporters, singers, and Hollywood actors do not work for free .
Hence even if revenues from selling content are large, much of that will go to pay for content, not just for the network. On the other hand, in the 'dumb pipes' model of Internet, wired and wireless alike, all the money stays with the content producer.
The Internet does allow users and developers to ignore most of the complexities of the network. By separating applications from transport, it encourages the two to evolve independently.
As in the Industrial Revolution, new technologies (the steam engine at that time, the computer in our times) deeply changed the way of working, of producing, of living.
The steam engine meant less work to produce the same amount of goods, and consequently meant cheaper products.
More goods were consumed, because more goods became mass products, and therefore less expensive and easily reachable also to the mass.
A new working class was created by the Industrial Revolution, a new working class will be created by the Computer Revolution.
And the Internet Revolution will deeply change the way the media will be delivered.
The new "Media Company" will produce content at a much lower cost.
Will distribute it via the Internet Network.
It will have two main advantages:
1) World wide footprint at the same cost as local distribution. Hence the possibility to reach a wide number of customers.
2) The new "Media Producer" will be able to satsfy all kinds of requests from users.
The Internet is mostly the greatest "niche market" economy. Being available to billions, it will easily find the minimum number of customers for ANY kind of content.
The new "Media Company" will give the voice to the millions who wouldn't be heard or listened to.
The Internet is likely to have a a much larger impact on TV than TV will have on Internet backbones.
The full model of TV broadcasting is going to change in the near future.
Also in the case of TV, the Internet, being an end to end network, will not replicate and SHOULD NOT REPLICATE the actual model of centralized delivery of content.
For that the wireless TV is a much better Media.
Traditional telecommunications carriers do have the technology and marketplace position to play a key role. Unfortunately they are handicapped by their culture, which includes belief in many misleading myths, the most prominent the 'content is king' . As just one example, Telecom Italia is neglecting voice services, broadband services, concentrating on TV on portable phones.
Who needs streaming video on a phone?
I am sure among many they will find a few eager to spend some money to have something worse than what they could have for free on a much bigger monitor, as history teaches, if you scrool the stupids' tree, something always falls down...
Concluding:
The Computer is the main tool for the New Media Producer.
The Internet is the main delivery way for Content producers.
After the Computer Revolution, the Internet Revolution, we will also see the Content Revolution.
What has really changed is the nature of publishing, a “Gutenbergian transformation” that involves both tools and distribution."
“If the user wants to be both author and editor, and technology is increasingly enabling this, what will be the role of the media company?"
The "Media Company" will have a total different meaning.
We are used to centralized delivery of content.But this kind of content is expensive to produce. The sports stars, reporters, singers, and Hollywood actors do not work for free .
Hence even if revenues from selling content are large, much of that will go to pay for content, not just for the network. On the other hand, in the 'dumb pipes' model of Internet, wired and wireless alike, all the money stays with the content producer.
The Internet does allow users and developers to ignore most of the complexities of the network. By separating applications from transport, it encourages the two to evolve independently.
As in the Industrial Revolution, new technologies (the steam engine at that time, the computer in our times) deeply changed the way of working, of producing, of living.
The steam engine meant less work to produce the same amount of goods, and consequently meant cheaper products.
More goods were consumed, because more goods became mass products, and therefore less expensive and easily reachable also to the mass.
A new working class was created by the Industrial Revolution, a new working class will be created by the Computer Revolution.
And the Internet Revolution will deeply change the way the media will be delivered.
The new "Media Company" will produce content at a much lower cost.
Will distribute it via the Internet Network.
It will have two main advantages:
1) World wide footprint at the same cost as local distribution. Hence the possibility to reach a wide number of customers.
2) The new "Media Producer" will be able to satsfy all kinds of requests from users.
The Internet is mostly the greatest "niche market" economy. Being available to billions, it will easily find the minimum number of customers for ANY kind of content.
The new "Media Company" will give the voice to the millions who wouldn't be heard or listened to.
The Internet is likely to have a a much larger impact on TV than TV will have on Internet backbones.
The full model of TV broadcasting is going to change in the near future.
Also in the case of TV, the Internet, being an end to end network, will not replicate and SHOULD NOT REPLICATE the actual model of centralized delivery of content.
For that the wireless TV is a much better Media.
Traditional telecommunications carriers do have the technology and marketplace position to play a key role. Unfortunately they are handicapped by their culture, which includes belief in many misleading myths, the most prominent the 'content is king' . As just one example, Telecom Italia is neglecting voice services, broadband services, concentrating on TV on portable phones.
Who needs streaming video on a phone?
I am sure among many they will find a few eager to spend some money to have something worse than what they could have for free on a much bigger monitor, as history teaches, if you scrool the stupids' tree, something always falls down...
Concluding:
The Computer is the main tool for the New Media Producer.
The Internet is the main delivery way for Content producers.
After the Computer Revolution, the Internet Revolution, we will also see the Content Revolution.
Friday, March 10, 2006
Customers' owned content
The myth that sees the Internet as first and foremost a content delivery system is false.
The Internet was born, had a big success, mostly because it is primarly a tool for person to person communication.
It is a Network and the main use of a network is connecting people through wires (voice in the old analogue telephone system)or computers (dygital data transmission of voice and images).
"Content - material prepared by professionals for consumption by large audiences - undoubtedly plays a big part in consumers' lives.
Many businesses based on movies, book publishing, recorded music, professional sports or news dissemination are large and prosperous.
And content is certainly a more glamorous business than providing 'dumb pipes'. But the truth is, content has never been as essential to consumers or as economically vital as connectivity.
To put the comparison in perspective, the annual movie theater ticket sales in the U.S. are under $10 billion. The telephone industry collects that much money every two weeks!"
"By focusing attention on centralized delivery of content, the Web may have led decision makers astray and prevented a proper appreciation of the importance of point-to-point communications that are often chaotic and generally hard to predict.
Part of the problem is a kind of snobbery.
Polished, glamorous, professionally-produced content tends to be overrated by decision-makers while everyday gossip is downgraded."
What has been mostly overlooked and misunderstood is the type of content that people want or would want, were it delivered: the customers' owned content.
"The telecommunications sector has traditionally grown faster than the economy as a whole. There is no reason for this trend not to resume, once the overinvestment of the bubble years is dealt with, since we are moving towards an 'Information Society'.
But we should expect a continuation of major restructuring in delivery of services as well as provision of systems, and the eventual winners are yet to be determined."
Yet there are some guidelines that can help determine who will win and who will lose.
The Internet, by its nature, is an end to end network.
It is not made for a centralized delivery of content to end users.
That is why software and means of distribution such as P2P are mostly succesful.
Besides we must not forget the inner spirit which made the world web what it is.
The network who connects computers which have the same importance either belonging to a big company or to a lonely individual.
A website has the same chances to be succesful whether it is made by a lonely soul or by a big enterprise.
It is by its nature, the real first democracy (or very close to democracy) on this world.
Not because wanted or made in this way, but because every user of the network (at least in theory) has the same chances.
So what kind of content is going to win?
It will be a content made by brains more than businesses.
Many businesses based on movies, book publishing, recorded music,professional sports or news dissemination are large and prosperous.
But the Internet and the cheap hardware and the always better software are going to give birth to a new generation of businesses: the one brain company.
We will have the one musician (or few) orchestra.
More technology, better software, less people.
We will have good movies that won't come from Hollywood, but will teach Hollywood how a movie should be made.
We will have new types of commercials, new types of whatever we are used too.
Yes, old habits are hard to die, but new ideas are easy to win.
The Internet was born, had a big success, mostly because it is primarly a tool for person to person communication.
It is a Network and the main use of a network is connecting people through wires (voice in the old analogue telephone system)or computers (dygital data transmission of voice and images).
"Content - material prepared by professionals for consumption by large audiences - undoubtedly plays a big part in consumers' lives.
Many businesses based on movies, book publishing, recorded music, professional sports or news dissemination are large and prosperous.
And content is certainly a more glamorous business than providing 'dumb pipes'. But the truth is, content has never been as essential to consumers or as economically vital as connectivity.
To put the comparison in perspective, the annual movie theater ticket sales in the U.S. are under $10 billion. The telephone industry collects that much money every two weeks!"
"By focusing attention on centralized delivery of content, the Web may have led decision makers astray and prevented a proper appreciation of the importance of point-to-point communications that are often chaotic and generally hard to predict.
Part of the problem is a kind of snobbery.
Polished, glamorous, professionally-produced content tends to be overrated by decision-makers while everyday gossip is downgraded."
What has been mostly overlooked and misunderstood is the type of content that people want or would want, were it delivered: the customers' owned content.
"The telecommunications sector has traditionally grown faster than the economy as a whole. There is no reason for this trend not to resume, once the overinvestment of the bubble years is dealt with, since we are moving towards an 'Information Society'.
But we should expect a continuation of major restructuring in delivery of services as well as provision of systems, and the eventual winners are yet to be determined."
Yet there are some guidelines that can help determine who will win and who will lose.
The Internet, by its nature, is an end to end network.
It is not made for a centralized delivery of content to end users.
That is why software and means of distribution such as P2P are mostly succesful.
Besides we must not forget the inner spirit which made the world web what it is.
The network who connects computers which have the same importance either belonging to a big company or to a lonely individual.
A website has the same chances to be succesful whether it is made by a lonely soul or by a big enterprise.
It is by its nature, the real first democracy (or very close to democracy) on this world.
Not because wanted or made in this way, but because every user of the network (at least in theory) has the same chances.
So what kind of content is going to win?
It will be a content made by brains more than businesses.
Many businesses based on movies, book publishing, recorded music,professional sports or news dissemination are large and prosperous.
But the Internet and the cheap hardware and the always better software are going to give birth to a new generation of businesses: the one brain company.
We will have the one musician (or few) orchestra.
More technology, better software, less people.
We will have good movies that won't come from Hollywood, but will teach Hollywood how a movie should be made.
We will have new types of commercials, new types of whatever we are used too.
Yes, old habits are hard to die, but new ideas are easy to win.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
What in the name of Religion
Religion is quite a good institution and the good of it is that it really does not make a difference whom you believe.
The other good side of it is that you are generally BORN with a religion and you usually die in the same faith.
What you do in between is your own personal matter.
It is also getting one of the burning and tormenting non-problems of our age.
I do not know who invented it as a new, burdensome problem.
Are you a catholic or a muslim?
I personally think I do not care, I think I can be both and neither: I am myself.
Some even think that the fight between West Countries and the Middle East is nothing else than a “clash of religions” or a “clash of cultures”.
I think there is something else behind it.
As if somebody could think that the Vatican rules Italy.
The rich and the powerful run Italy. Using the Religion too.
Just like in the Middle East.
All the ruling elite and various agitating groups want is to gain more political and economic control and power.
Just like the US wants and in a smaller scale Europe wants.(or wanted, which is the same).
The game is the oil’s price and availability.
The game is keeping our life style at the lowest possible cost.
No “clash of cultures” but the same interests and a “clash to get them”.
Using whatever tools are at their disposal (as everybody does). Whether it is religion, (muslim brotherhood in some cases, sectarianism in others), tribalism, nationalism, racism, etc. in the case of ideology or outright repression, jails, torture, executions, car bombs, arms purchases.
The other good side of it is that you are generally BORN with a religion and you usually die in the same faith.
What you do in between is your own personal matter.
It is also getting one of the burning and tormenting non-problems of our age.
I do not know who invented it as a new, burdensome problem.
Are you a catholic or a muslim?
I personally think I do not care, I think I can be both and neither: I am myself.
Some even think that the fight between West Countries and the Middle East is nothing else than a “clash of religions” or a “clash of cultures”.
I think there is something else behind it.
As if somebody could think that the Vatican rules Italy.
The rich and the powerful run Italy. Using the Religion too.
Just like in the Middle East.
All the ruling elite and various agitating groups want is to gain more political and economic control and power.
Just like the US wants and in a smaller scale Europe wants.(or wanted, which is the same).
The game is the oil’s price and availability.
The game is keeping our life style at the lowest possible cost.
No “clash of cultures” but the same interests and a “clash to get them”.
Using whatever tools are at their disposal (as everybody does). Whether it is religion, (muslim brotherhood in some cases, sectarianism in others), tribalism, nationalism, racism, etc. in the case of ideology or outright repression, jails, torture, executions, car bombs, arms purchases.
Blogging
"Blogging is the current manifestation of Internet disintermediation, the flattening of almost everything. There are no visible intermediaries between a blogger and her readers. Anyone with a computer and an Internet connection can write a blog; anyone with a computer and an Internet connection can read any publicly accessible blog."
Tom Evslin
Blogging is the newest form of journalism.
Not only for the new mean to write/read, but for the new kind of writers.
It is succesful because
1) It is free
2) It is widespread
3) Covers every kind of niche market.
4) It is a communication way, since it is interactive.
Point three is the peculiarity of the Internet.(and also point 4)
Covering the World gives a space to all, also to the one who wouldn't be heard and read on a limited edition.
The Internet is the
1) Customers' owned network
2) Customers' owned content
3) Self publishing newspaper
4) Self broadcasting mean
In a few words, it is the revolution of our generation.
Cheap hardware, cheap means of transmission, a global footprint, changed the way to write, sing, play, broadcast.
And more than anything will change the way the entertainment is made and consumed (and payed for obviously).
Existing companies will have to change the way their product is done, if they want to survive. It is just a matter of time...
Yes, I am a blog reader AND a blog writer...
Tom Evslin
Blogging is the newest form of journalism.
Not only for the new mean to write/read, but for the new kind of writers.
It is succesful because
1) It is free
2) It is widespread
3) Covers every kind of niche market.
4) It is a communication way, since it is interactive.
Point three is the peculiarity of the Internet.(and also point 4)
Covering the World gives a space to all, also to the one who wouldn't be heard and read on a limited edition.
The Internet is the
1) Customers' owned network
2) Customers' owned content
3) Self publishing newspaper
4) Self broadcasting mean
In a few words, it is the revolution of our generation.
Cheap hardware, cheap means of transmission, a global footprint, changed the way to write, sing, play, broadcast.
And more than anything will change the way the entertainment is made and consumed (and payed for obviously).
Existing companies will have to change the way their product is done, if they want to survive. It is just a matter of time...
Yes, I am a blog reader AND a blog writer...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Stumble It!