What Are You Still Talking About, Willis?

I rarely agree with Farhad. In fact, I normally vehemently disagree with him. But I always say its better to be loved than hated, but better to be hated than ignored. He's got readers and is generating a response so I guess he's doing something right. Most recently he seems to suggest that my tech savvy should be keeping me up at night.

No, not spending the wee hours in pointless IRC debates. He thinks I'm breaking the unspoken social contract of the internets by not loading ads that content providers have so lovingly chosen for me. I'm sorry, I meant to say "spread in a haphazard manner like bear traps covered with feces". Yeah, I don't think much about most of these ads.

The argument goes that since some online publications rely on advertising revenue to cover their costs, people using ad-blocking plug-ins, himself included, are like airline passengers taking fuel out of the 747 they intend to fly on. That is, it is unethical to block ads on pages you visit. Bull.

Firstly the author's metaphor doesn't really fly. We're not passengers siphoning fuel out of the plane, Slate is asking all the passengers who board to give them some fuel. There's a difference between stealing and not donating. If fees were mandatory there would be a pay wall.

Second, by his logic, not only are we unethical if we don't load the ads, Slate doesn't get paid if we don't click on the ads too. So we must all read and click on ads even if we are not interested. And having advertisers pay for click-throughs if we don't intend to buy anything isn't ethical either, so we all have to buy anything that advertises on a web page we read. (I don't have any paid advertising, although there is a store link right over there! ---->)

Farhad seems to blame us for not wanting to be constantly assailed and only briefly mentions (too little too late in my view) the concept of making advertising better as opposed to more invasive. As consumers have more control over their media and more options for gathering information advertisers need to find a way to make their messages not just "not annoying" but desirable.

There is a difference between tolerating advertising and seeking it out. Targeting messages is a good first step, but as algorithms progress I may end up seeing a sea of advertisements that are equally applicable. Which, if we're not careful, could lead to another 'most annoying ad' contest. The trick is to make consumers want to see your advertisement. If an ad man can make me back my Tivo up to see his message he's done his job. The rest is just filler.

• An ethical proposal for Firefox's popular ad-removal tool. - By Farhad Manjoo - Slate Magazine

Secret Secrets.

I love commercials for Mercury cars because of the spokeswoman, but I not gonna buy a car because of her.

Holy Shit.

Its finally happened.  I started getting a bad feeling when corporate sponsors started not just advertising at sporting events, but buying the naming rights, and the events themselves.  Soon companies were looking for opportunities to buy anything they could get their hands on and rename.

Well now even the government is apparently for sale; and not just the traditional back-room-lobbyist-for-sale we're used to.  20th century Fox has commissioned a special edition US quarter that is legal tender.  It has the Silver Surfer on the back and lists the Fantastic Four movie website.  You read that right, advertising on our money.  How perverse is that?

I like the Silver Surfer and everything, but this gives me the jibblies.  How long before I see the Exxon-Mobile Presidential motorcade or the Mountain Dew Supreme Court?

• Silver Surfer Quarters - Marvel.com news

Selling Cars Takes Bawls.

Chevy is very proud of their new Malibu design. So much so that the best way they can think to sell it is to put a Camry right next to it in the show room. Ah the old coke-pepsi taste test routine. Wait, was that pepsi-coke taste test? Who ran those things and what were they sposed to prove? Crap.

But I digress, Chevy is renting a crap-load of Camrys to put in their show-rooms so customers can kick tires and compare the two without having to leave the dealer. They never want you to leave the dealer. Its hard to tell if the gambit will work out, cause people might not agree that the Malibu is better, and they still have to convince shoppers to stop at a Chevy dealer to begin with. But at least they're rolling the dice.

Bottom line this means for car buyers: there are going to be a bunch of used Camrys hitting the market in 18 months that have almost no miles on them. But the seats will be blown out and the surfaces will have disgusting people grease all over them.

• Chevy dealers told to get a Camry to sell their Malibus - Autoblog

Just Call Me Lackluster, See What Happens.

New paradigms abound.  I know it really helps marketers to lump people into groups, but something about being classified makes me not want to buy shit.  If I know you want me to buy something and I get the slightest feeling you're up to something I'm audi.  Just be glad that I don't play it like Ronin and shoot up the place.  "Got the swag, kept the money, good show!"

Nonsense segways aside, they've decided to break up the "early adopter" tag (since technically a third of people are now, and we can't all be early adopters) into several sub groups.  A quarter of the third are now called "Lackluster Veterans," which I can only assume refers to the number of times I've been burned getting hopeful about some swanky new product.  Although to be fair, it is not I that is lackluster, its your crappy products that fail to impress.

I recently realized I'm in this group because I do read about new stuff, but I have absolutely no plans to get any of it and I'm often underwhelmed.  Why just this morning a friend asked me about the iPhone (somehow people assume I'll be getting one) :

Jeadly,
In your expert technical opinion, would you switch to ATT (Cingular) because of the iPhone?  Looks so appealing.  Bluetooth.  iTunes.  Bluetooth.  But I am a Verzion Wireless customer with 4 lines on a family plan.  Contract aside…  Thoughts?

no, i would not.  I would not pay for an iphone if they had it on verizon.

But is that because of iPhone or Verizon?  Like what are 1-3 reasons why?  I mean, I think I'd rather just have a phone and then an iPod with Bluetooth.  But…  yeah.  Looks so pretty.

Uh, I've been down on gadgets lately.  Especially gadgets they tell me will change my life.  They're not going to magically fill some void I never thought possible (unless maybe I go live in the desert for 6 years and come back amazed at the advancements they've made.)  I mean, look at the "innovations" they've got lined up: live streaming video (what's the point?  video was novel, but now they're all doing it cause they can, not cause they should) stupid rings for everything imaginable (i've just gotten rid of all my rings for individual people cause I never know what it sounds like and don't know its me ringing.)

I can't run itunes all the time on my computer cause it sucks up too many resources.  I don't buy from itunes music store cause I'm not willing to pay more for no DRM.  I've been leaving my ipod in my car lately, so i don't carry it around anyway.  And I've been listening to CDs in my car that i haven't heard for a while.  I don't use my bluetooth headphones anymore cause I just don't care enough.  I've also slowed down buying music on emusic, which is trouble cause I get 40 songs a month regardless.

I've also realized that phones seem cool when you get them and then always seem played out in a year or so cause they keep one-upping the current model, just wait till apple gets on that train, they freaking laid the track in that ploy.  If i cared about the phone i had I'd look into something like helio.  But when it comes down to it they're all too expensive.  250 bucks for a phone (more for an iphone, right?) and then a hundred bucks a month is unreasonable for my needs. 30 second - 2 minute conversations, occasional text messages and moderate Internet usage.

*Sigh*  Such an old man.  What happened to the young, innocent, uncynical me that got excited about mini-discs and rios and chocolate chip pancakes wrapped around sausage on a stick?

• Techdirt: Early Adopters Not All Thrilled About Technology

Is Your Commute A Blur?

I don't usually read billboards. And when I do they're stupid; with a few exceptions. This is a neat idea from Ford. The "board" is actually a semi-transparent resin that blurs the image behind it. So no, that's not just a picture of the landscape, its real.

Jalopnik: New Ford Billboard to Further Confuse Drunk Drivers

How Much Do I Pay For Ads?

I've got internet on my phone. Its that kind that you connect up and use your minutes for god-awful-slow data transfer on a tiny and crippled browser. It sucks, but I can check my gmail, find a movie time, or if I'm crafty directions to somewhere. The start page is Verizon's half page add and news I don't care about page that I have to wait for before I can type in a url and get the hell out of there. That's my experience with mobile adds, so you can understand why I'm not pumped up about Yahoo! coming up with mobile ads. I don't have enough screen space and bandwidth to support that crap. Oh and you're not supplementing my connection charge (granted I'd probably be using their service, but google doesn't have adds so I'll just stick with them) so you can get lost. Again.

DownloadSquad: Yahoo! mobile phone ads coming soon

I'll Have Your Network With His Phone And Their Services.

I saw a commercial yesterday - I dunno why I saw a commercial, I must have been spacing on the fast forward button - for a cell phone or something. It was called Helio and was almost in the style of those Old Navy commercials that make me vomit. Not so much in the dancing around to hip music trying to be a GAP ad, but in the cool young people having fun with whatever the product is. I know that sounds vague, but I'm fine with it. Anyway, the one guy finds the other guy using the phone's GPS or something (kinda cool) and the other guy says something about Google Maps on his phone. Alright, I'm listening.

Well, I wanted to find out more about this product, but I couldn't remember the name of the company (advertising is very effective on me) until I read an article about how bad Cingular sucks and someone asked what the deal with Helio was in the comments. (no one answered him) Ah! It was called Helio. Wiki to the rescue-

Helio is a MVNO joint venture between SK Telecom and Earthlink. MVNO means that they don't own any licensed spectrum but rent service from other providers. Look at the coverage map of my area. No whitespace. They've got a ton of 3G coverage that they lease from Sprint and they lease voice only access from Verizon for all the other areas. What? They only reason I'm on Verizon is because they have the most pervasive coverage in my area. They don't have the best service they have the most ubituitous service. And now they don't have that because I can go through someone else to get a hybrid service. So right out of the blocks that's sounding sweet. But there's more:

The premise of this new company would be to bring advanced mobile devices in service from SK Telecom's home market of Korea to the US wireless market, where such advanced devices had been noted, by many, to be lacking. Helio, as it was to be called, would market itself to the younger demographic, promoting itself using the latest in cutting-edge handset technology. They plan to avoid taking on the major US wireless carriers directly, and instead they intend to carve out a niche for themselves with technology-savvy consumers.

Yeah? Bringing some of that rocking handset technology over here from Korea? Awesome. And marketing themselves to a savvy consumer base sounds like they won't want to piss people off by crippling their phones.

Want some more? Ok, they realize they're selling convergence items. So after you switch over for one of their devices you can send in your old tech for cash rewards. Like the phone in my pocket is worth a $46.75 trade-in. And I'm pretty sure I've got a couple more in my glove box. But its not just phones. They want iPods, PSPs, cameras, PDAs whatever your new convergence device is replacing. I mean, sure maybe you could get more for it on eBay if you're willing to put a bit more effort into it. But I find it very refreshing for a company to embrace convergence and enable its customers' transition.

That and the options look so freaking simple. Pick a phone, pick how many minutes you want and pick a data option. 65 or 40 bucks a month. I obviously need to look around a little more but this sounds like the kind of company I'm angling for.

• Helio | Drift, Hero, & Kickflip cell phones, MySpace Mobile, buddy beacon, mobile games, & more

Oh. Poop.

From Slashdot:

"Isaac Garcia from Central Desktop Blog writes, 'How much does Google pay *itself* to claim the top ad position for searches relevant to its own products? Google holds the top advertisement (Adword) slot for the following key words: intranet, spreadsheet, documents, calendar, word processor, email, video, instant messenger, blog, photo sharing, online groups, maps, start page, restaurants, dining, and books... ...if you are trying to advertise a product that is competitive to Google, then you'll never be able to receive the Top Ad Position, no matter how much money you bid and spend. How different is it than MSFT placing its products (Internet Explorer) in a premium marketing position (embedded in the OS)?'"

Crap. I think they're right. I don't really know how adwords work (who does) or how the rankings are determined but it does seem like Google may inflate their services to stay on top of other advertisements. Hang on let me go turn the advertisements on in FireFox...

Yeah, Google services turn up as sponsored links for all those searches. Sometimes with a competitor, sometimes alone. So now the question is if someone could out-bit Google for those spots. I'm thinking that they can't; but that's just a guess.

But its alright. I've got a work around. Just take away the "sponsored link" text and return it as a suggestion. Kinda like the answer to life the universe and everything or how you get a link to Google maps when you search for Phoenix, AZ. They're not sponsored and not part of the adwords system, they're just links to other Google services.

• Slashdot | Google's Silent Monopoly

Secur-umor-pple-ity

Ok, so I'm going to do a security post combined with a small rant against Apple, bisected with a little Australian humor.

I really don't like those commercials with the two guys and one says he's a Mac and the other says he's a PC. Sure it illustrates some of the key differences in a semi-abstract way, but it also misleads consumers into poor assumptions based on incomplete information. Like that one where the PC is sick and the Mac says that he doesn't get sick. Yeah, that's cause there aren't enough of you to make viruses worthwhile, not cause you've got bulletproof security. Its kind of a security through obscurity tact, which isn't really the best policy. So check out this Mac adware proof of concept. The company that produced it says it was actually easier to do than on a PC, someone just had to get around to doing it.

• Techdirt: Even Security Breaches Are Easier On Macs

Next, you know about Trojans. Yeah, they're banana sheaths (huh, I'd never though of that product in the context of slipping something in unnoticed before) , but I mean the kind of computer virus. They ride in disguised as something else, a reference (everyone knows) to the Trojan horse. Watch this clip of an Australian show that decided to see if anyone would still fall for the old Trojan Horse stunt.

• YouTube - Chasers - Trojan Horse

And lastly, back to Mac security. On Tuesday Apple released a patch for 22 security holes in OS X. Yeah, that slick talking young-type person in the commercial didn't say anything about that, did he? And I know that Microsoft is constantly releasing patches (for many more security holes) but what do you think when they do? That's right. "Sure they got these ones, but how many more are still at large?" Well the answer is that there will always be holes wherever people apply themselves. Sure you could be completely secure, but what good is a castle without gates? Sounds like a prison.

So to all you Mac owners out there rubbing your Powerbooks in my face, quit advertising how great Macs are. Your best hope for security is the continued unpopularity of the brand. Remember, just cause no one takes the time to smell your shit, doesn't mean it don't stink.

• AppleInsider | Apple patches 22 security holes in Mac OS X

If You Can't Trust Bloggers...

I remember back in the day when people used to write for the fun of it, before all this payola crap tainted opinion pieces from the common man. Now people have to wonder if you're being paid to say nice things about a company or product. PayPerPost is the end of trustworthy anonymous sources of advice and opinion on the Internet. I'm a big fan of transparency so the policy of optional disclosure, or the dilution of disclosure pisses me off a bit.

The policy on PayPerPost is that bloggers need not disclose that they are being paid to express a specific opinion about a product. Also, in an astroturf-like move, PayPerPost has launched DisclosurePolicy.org which helps people develop disclosures for their sites (and pays them to display it). The trouble is that they want people who have nothing to disclose to also display one.

This blog does not accept any form of advertising, sponsorship, or paid insertions. We write for our own purposes. However, we may be influenced by our background, occupation, religion, political affiliation or experience.

I'm not going to say that, because I'm writing my opinion, and of course my opinion is going to be influenced by who I am, that's why its mine. They're trying to desensitize readers to advisories like this, conveying that everyone has an agenda, and it shouldn't matter what motivates them. So as soon as the kickbacks start rolling in, I'm going to have a disclosure posted on every article.

But rest assured, I'm not going to stoop to this. Granted there's no reason to believe me; but if I recommend a product, its because I really like and endorse it. Not because I'm being paid to suck up. Unless you see me on a Subway commercial talking about how I lost 400 pounds eating chicken subs, then it will be for the money.

• Techcrunch » Blog Archive » PayPerPost Is Now Officially Absurd

I Can't Force You To Read This.

An article at TechDirt lays some smack down on Harry Fuller's little snippet about TV/Internet integration. Its mostly about Stephen Colbert and how Harry says he's doing it all wrong. He tries to tee up on the recent Star Wars green screen challenge.

"But can you find that video on the Colbert Web site? Of course not, you have to go to YouTube to see the videos fans produced. Colbert thinks he can use the Web to force people to watch his TV show? Not too swift."

I'm gonna have to jump on the TechDirt wagon cause most of that noise doesn't make any sense at all. Fuller is a former TV executive, so I guess he wants all information easily contained and sanitized for consumption in a single location. That way they can "force" you to view their content. For example, I just looked at the source code of FoxNews.com and didn't find a single external link other than its ads. Yeah, you get the Internet. Colbert talks about (and creates) current Internet events on his show. He doesn't just have a sad little site that tries to supplement what I saw on TV. If I want more information on something, there are way better sources than FoxNews.com. In all honestly I can't even remember most websites that they tell me on TV. I have never been to ColbertNation.com. But I did vote to name the bridge in Hungary (after Chuck Norris), because I found a link to it on another site.

That's what the executive fringe doesn't seem to get. I'm not typing in a url and staying confined within that domain. I'm clicking links, I'm looking at sources, I'm enjoying quality websites that aren't concerned with cornering market share. When I post external links here I assume that most of you will at least glance at them. And I fully expect that I'll loose a good portion of traffic from people that just never make it back. The Internet is too big and interesting to limit readers like that. I've come to expect it, and I can only hope that people will be drawn in by my terribly witty insights. So I think that what Stephen Colbert is doing is exactly what Internet integration should be. Becoming part of the buzz and accepting it as its own medium, not just a way to corral more eyeballs into your roundhouse.

P.S.
Harry Fuller,
No I'd never heard of current.tv (wikipedia), but now I have thanks to the external link on your post. And now they have another link from my post. See how the Internet goes down?