Windows Vista failed, and you have no one to blame but yourself

As Microsoft prepares Windows 7 for release this October, I wanted to take a look back at Windows Vista. Windows Vista is the most stable, most secure, and has the most innovations of any operating system Microsoft has ever made. It is also their second biggest failure(the ill conceived Windows ME holds that distinction). The launch of Windows Vista was a Marketing disaster for Microsoft, and for the next year, it continued to receive bad PR. There are several reasons for this, some of which can be blamed on Microsoft, but the majority of which cannot. Instead of focusing on those points, I am going to focus on the complaints that I have heard over the years about Vista.

1. My Printer, scanner, or [insert other piece of hardware here] doesn't work in Vista.

This is, in my opinion, one of the top 2 reasons why people complained about Windows Vista. This, however, is something that is only partially Microsof's fault. Now, without getting too technical, the reason why this happened is that Microsoft changed the architecture for drivers in Windows. Now, a driver is essentially the software that allows your windows to work with the printer, scanner, mouse, iPod, anything. What this meant, was that for a lot of peripherals, the manufacturer, not Microsoft, was responsible for creating that driver. What many companies, printer companies especially, decided to do was not create those drivers for older printers. This was a business decision designed to get consumers to buy a new device.

The overall question though, is that is this a good thing? Again, without getting too technical, the changes that Microsoft made in the way drivers need to work were good changes. They unfortunately come with growing pains. Now, 2.5 years after Windows Vista launched, everything works just fine with it. And Windows 7 uses the same, improved driver model, so essentially everything that works with Windows Vista will also work with Windows 7.

The third party companies that make the hardware are the ones that are responsible for not supporting Windows Vista. Now, I fully admit that for them to support Windows Vista for devices that were, in some cases, 6-7 years old would have cost them a lot of money. They would have to allocate people and resources to create drivers for printers that no one in the company had supported for years. The return on investment for doing that likely would have been too small to justify the cost. However, that did not change the fact that when the average consumer bought a new computer with Windows Vista, and their printer did not work, they were un happy.

Overall, I'm going to call this a draw. Microsoft and the third parties were both justified in their decisions, and in the end, it did affect the customer. An unpleasant, but necessary growing pain for Windows.

2. Vista runs very slowly on my 4 year old computer, or the $800 computer I just bought runs vista very slowly

This issue has largely disappeared recently. Back in 2006, the consumer world had grown accustomed to a $700-$800 PC running Windows XP well. However, in early 2007, when Vista became available to consumers, windows XP was over 5 years old. even low end PC hardware in 2006 was significantly more powerful than what was a high end computer in 2001. Unfortunately, the consumer has been conditioned that they should be able to buy a computer for $700, and have it run well. In 2006, that was simply not the case, nor should it be. Windows Vista is a modern, advanced operating system that offered numerous improvements over XP. That's not to say it was perfect. It does have problems, even today. But to expect an new operating system to run on either hardware that was 4-5 years old, or on a computer made as cheaply as possible, is not fair to Microsoft.

Both of these reasons are the main contributors as to why Windows Vista received such a bad reputation at launch. There are other reasons, such as Apple's relentless ads against them, the emergence of netbooks, which Windows Vista does not run well on, and many businesses not moving to Vista. In part 2 of this article, I will discuss why people should be using Vista, and why it is so good.

Last.FM no longer free if you do not live in US, U.K., or Germany

Wired.com has an article about Last.fm making the site a pay site outside of the US, U.K. and Germany.  According to the article, last.fm is saying they do not gain enough advertising revenue from these countries to justify the cost of the service.  From now on, users outside of those 3 countries will have to pay $3/month to use the service, not a large amount of money, but $3 more than it was before.  It also pretty much means that minors will have no way to use the service, unless they are able to use a parent’s credit card.  Last.fm has always had this $3/month service, but before it was a “premium” account that removes advertising and offers more playlist flexibility.

I think this is ridiculous.  I am a last.fm user, not all the time, but probably 3-4 hours a week of the service.  I will no longer be using that service.  Can I afford $3/month?  Absolutely.  Will I pay it?  Absolutely not.  I feel like the people that use last.fm outside of those 3 “core” countries will be forced to finance last.fm’s continued operations in those countries, where people listen for free.

I have also introduced a few people under the age of 18 to last.fm, and at least a couple of them use it as their primary music source at home now.  I now have to go tell them they can’t keep using their favorite service, unless they can manage to convince their parents to allow the use of their credit card.  This will likely just drive minors back to piracy, when they before had a legal means of listening to music.  And I think we can all agree that driving people back to piracy, when they were previously more than willing to listen to ads to get their media in a legal manner.

It may not seem like it, but Last.fm has just taken a step back in combating piracy, and that is a bad thing

[Read] – Wired aticle

Why the CRTC needs an overhaul – Part 2

This is the second part of my post/rant about the CRTC.  You can find part one here.

In part one I briefly talked about the protectionism the CRTC takes with regards to Canadian content.  I want to talk a bit about how the CRTC handles TV, and how it is really limiting how Canadians can get TV shows legally through new media sources, namely the internet.

I am going to start by explaining where the United States stands in online media.  It’s a fairly simple process in the US.  Fox produces the show 24, and they have full rights to that show to distribute it however they want.  24 can be watched on regular TV, it can be purchased on the iTunes store, and it can be legally watched online on various websites, most notably hulu.  Through all of these, Fox collects a royalty.  It collects a percentage of the sales on iTunes, as well as revenue from advertisements on both the broadcast TV and web versions.  The streaming web versions have advertisements just like the broadcast TV does.  in the year since hulu launched, it has exploded in popularity.  The people that visit the site do not care that there are ads in the shows.  they appreciate that they can watch the shows online, and are more than willing to sit through normal ads.  This model is proving very successful, and more and more shows are appearing on the web in either a paid downloadable form, or an ad-supported streaming fashion.

Now, lets move over to the Canadian logistics. In Canada, Global TV has paid for the right to show 24 on it’s network.  This means that Global has full rights to the show in Canada.  Under CRTC rules, Global simulcasts 24 fox in the US, except that the fox channel in Canada is dubbed over the the Global broadcast.  This means that the Fox broadcast is not seen at all in Canada.  This is to ensure that all ads shown on TV are the Canadian ads.  This I have no problem with(except for the super bowl of course.  I want those US ads).  where it gets muddy is the online space.  I will use the iTunes store and 24 as an example. 

Since Global owns the rights to 24 in Canada, it also owns the rights for all online broadcasts of the show as well.  for Apple to offer 24 on the iTunes store in Canada, they have to negotiate a deal with Fox, as it is the owner of the show as a whole.  Then, because Global owns the broadcast rights in Canada, Apple essentially has to negotiate the same deal again with Global.  this means that while Apple only has to negotiate one deal to offer 24 in the US, it has to negotiate 2 deals to offer 24 in Canada.  This means that they will have to pay fees to both Fox and Global, which, if any such deal can even be done, will likely mean that extra cost being passed onto the consumer who buys the show.  Apple has been reluctant to this point to have to pass that cost onto the consumer, so those deals have not been made.  To be fair, Global does offer it’s shows streaming on it’s website.  However, as of this writing, they have chosen not to allow other methods of streaming either through them, or through sub-licensing their rights to the show.

If you look on the iTunes store in Canada, there is a lot of Canadian content, as well as some US content.  Canadian content can be negotiated the same way the US content is in the US. if CBC produces a show, they own all the rights, so Apple only has to negotiate one deal to get the show on iTunes.  there are also several US networks and shows in Canada.  Those are shows that do not have a Canadian rights owner.  Meaning that there are no Canadian networks that broadcast them.  In that case Apple again only has to negotiate one deal for those shows, as there is no one who holds the rights to broadcast the shows in Canada.

What I would like to see the CRTC do is begin removing the online component of the Canadian network’s license to show US shows in Canada.  If they want those rights, they should have to negotiate them separately.  This would allow proper competition in the marketplace, instead of a monopoly of the Canadian networks over US content.  Let’s un-do the shackles, and let people actually innovate with TV delivery on the internet.  It’s the way of the future, and if the CRTC chooses not to allow this to happen, they risk having the country left behind as others innovate.

Why the CRTC needs an overhaul – Part 1

The title says it all doesn’t it?  the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission(CRTC) is broken, and needs to be fixed.  the problem is, is that I’m not sure if it can be.  For those of you who don’t know, the CRTC is the governing body of all radio, TV, telephone, cell phone, and internet traffic in Canada.  The closest to an equal organization in the US would be the FCC, except that the CRTC also controls some things that the RIAA and MPAA in the US controls also.  Sounds great doesn’t it?  This post will truly be a wall of text, so I have decided to break it up into two parts.  The first part will deal with the current hearings going on between the RIAA and Canadian ISP’s regarding the internet.  The second part will be about the CRTC and TV in Canada.  I hope you’ll find it an interesting read.

For those who do not know, the CRTC requires that all TV and Radio stations based in Canada show a certain amount of Canadian content every day.  Canadian content is content that is shot and produced in Canada.  Some stations, like Global and CTV, usually only supply the minimum amount of Canadian content as required by the CRTC, where stations like CBC usually produce a higher level of Canadian content.  To this point, the CRTC has said that the internet is exempt from this rule.  The CRTC is now revisiting this exemption, and is weighing whether or not to require that a set amount of traffic delivered to Canadian PC’s would be Canadian content.

Let me just step back and let that sink in for a second.  Seriously, really sit and think about that.  Okay, done?  Good.

My first, gut response, is that the CRTC has no idea at all what it is doing, or talking about.  Contrary to belief from some US senators, the internet is not a “series of tubes.”  It is an open world and restricting it is next to impossible. 

It is possible to use IP address sources to find which content is coming from a Canadian PC or server, but that would in no way be accurate at all.  A Canadian could be using a US based hosting service, so the content could be Canadian, but coming from the US.  A US customer could be routing content through a proxy server in Canada, which would make the content look like it was coming from Canada, when it really is US produced.

Then lets look at the other side.  How are ISP’s supposed to enforce this?  The current number being thrown around is that 30% of internet content would have to be Canadian made content.  Never mind trying to throttle P2P traffic, what is an ISP supposed to do?  Suppose that there is a way to correctly tag all Canadian content on the internet.  In a scenario where 30% of all content viewed would have to be Canadian, what happens if that quota is not met?  Will ISP’s block all non Canadian web pages until over 30% of the content for the day is Canadian?  Will they cut you off of the internet all together?  Think of it this way.  After literally a decade of fighting, illegally downloading music, TV shows and movies is absolutely rampant across the internet.  If no one can stop illegal copyright violation, how are Canadian ISP's supposed to stop legal content from flowing?

I believe that this is one of the few times that every major ISP in the country, Shaw, Bell, Telus, and Rogers, have all agreed on one thing.  This would be a very bad idea.  Shaw was the first to voice it’s concerns, while the other three followed suit shortly thereafter.  It’s a kind of ISP solidarity that is unprecedented in this country.  They have realized that enforcing this would be impossible, and are telling the CRTC this.  The question is, will the CRTC listen?

Attempting to restrict the content on the internet would be catastrophic to the growth of the internet in Canada.  In a country this size, with such a small, spread out population, the internet has really changed the way that smaller communities, especially northern communities, can communicate. 

To me, this really shows how badly out of touch, and out of date the CRTC really is.  It is an organization that exists solely to protected Canadian interests.  I will never dispute that that is an important function, but in the age where I can find out exactly what is going on half way around the world in real time, the kind of protectionism that the CRTC undertakes is not realistic.  Instead of trying to fight the internet, the CRTC should be aiming to give everyone more access, and easier access to it. And instead of forcing Canadian content down peoples throats, they should be working with Canadian content providers to make good quality Canadian content that people will actually want to watch.  Don’t force the bad on us, but promote the good.  Make it good, and the people will watch.  Two of my favorite TV shows right now are The Border and Flashpoint, made by CBC and CTV respectively.  Both are action  shows, and both are, in my opinion, among the best shows on TV in their Genre right now, in the US or Canada.  CBS in the US has even bought the broadcast rights of Flashpoint from CTV and simulcasts new episodes when they air.

Is it too much to ask for the CRTC to stop trying to force decades old ideals down our throats?  I hope not.  And I hope they get the picture.  the CRTC needs to leave the internet alone.  I hope they are listening.

Twitter and the media

Yesterday Lynda Steele of Global TV Edmonton posted to Twitter asking for suggestions on how the media can effectively use Twitter, and asked for anyone to email her with suggestions to take to a newsroom meeting today.  This, along with the recent rush of Edmonton media flocking to Twitter really got me thinking about Twitter, Media, and the news in general.  I spent some time thinking about it, and did send her my thoughts.  I thought that I would put some of them down here.

Twitter is about the community. specifically in Edmonton there are people from all walks of life, from every corner of the city, and even the entire Capital Region that use Twitter.  that is a powerful tool that, if used correctly, can greatly enhance the media.  I personally believe that the key to using Twitter is not to simply use it as another medium for delivering the same news, but to make it actually part of the news process.  Currently, Global TV Edmonton uses Facebook effectively in that many news updates and clips are posted there, as well as user feedback on the fan page being read on the air.  However, Facebook does not have the same instant connection feeling that Twitter has.  Facebook is a good tool, and I hope that Global can continue to develop it as a tool and exploit it’s strengths to enhance the quality of their broadcasts.  I think they can do the exact same thing with Twitter, however in a different way.

My main suggestion to Ms. Steele was to exploit the Twitter community as much as possible.  Use Twitter not just as a tool for delivering the news, but use it in the information gathering process, use it in the reporting process, and use it in the dissemination of the news.  Make the Twitter community an active participant in the news.  There is such a diverse group on Twitter that is ready, willing, and able to be used.  Some of the specific suggestions I had were:

• Use twitter to ask for quick, immediate feedback on a story
• Use Twitter to have users submit interview questions
• Utilize the fact that there are people from the entire Capital Region on Twitter by monitoring what is going on in the city
• Find News stories on Twitter
• If a user posts something interesting on Twitter, have a reporter investigate.  Ask questions to see what is going on.  Maybe a simple 140 character post can turn into the top story of the day.
• If a user on Twitter sees news happen, use that person who is there as it is happening in gathering information on a story.
• Make Twitter an active part of the news broadcasts.  Reaction to a news story can be gauged even before the story is over on the broadcasts.  make the comments part of the story.

What I don't want to see is Twitter simply being used like RSS.  Twitter is a powerful tool that connects people together unlike Facebook likely ever will.  It should be used, and exploited to improve the quality of the news, and the quality of the media.  I believe that, if used properly, Twitter can be a tool to improve the quality of the product that the Media delivers.  I cannot wait to see what Lynda Steele and the rest of the Global TV Edmonton team can come up with.  As someone who has been using Twitter since November of 2007 it is very exciting to me to see how much it has grown.  I think the media can further it’s growth even more.