Delusional Analysts and Pipe Dreams

From TGDaily:

Will WP7 trounce the iPhone in 2015?

Sales of Windows Phone 7 devices have thus far been rather underwhelming. But analysts at IDC believe Microsoft's WP7 platform, combined with Nokia's hardware expertise, will help the rapidly evolving OS outpace Apple's iPhone.

However, Llamas acknowledged WP7 will initially only capture a "small share of the market," as Mango-enabled devices are slated to hit store shelves in late 2011.

"Nevertheless, assuming Nokia's transition to Windows Phone goes smoothly, the OS is expected to defend a number 2 rank and more than 20% share in 2015," he predicted.

And Apple's iOS?

Well, IDC exepcts the iPhone to remain a primary force in the mobile market until at least 2015. After an initial "explosive growth period," iOS is projected to grow at a more modest pace as the smartphone market matures and diversifies.







Nice piece of delusional fiction here. What they fail to mention (and that their chart doesn't show with much clarity) is that before WindowsPhone7 can "trounce" the iPhone, it's got to go through Blackberry and everyone who has a Symbian handset will have to get rid of it in the next three years. And in addition - and this is the delusional part - the iPhone would have to remain static, not innovate, and fail to capture any more sizable market share and Android would have to only gain 5% more share. In other words, for this twisted reality to come true, the majority of phones sold over the next four years would have to be Windows phones in order to not only out-pace Blackberry, iPhone and Android, but also to counter all the existing hardware from those manufacturers out there. Granted, the average lifespan of a smart phone is only two years, but with news of more and more enterprise clients actively turning away from Windows Mobile in favor iOS and Android, I just don't see it happening.

There's a huge probability that Blackberry will fail to innovate and implode, potentially opening up market share for WP7, but it's just as likely that Blackberry customers would migrate to iPhone or Android first. This analyst is assuming that Nokia's market share, combined with a Windows phone would be such a juggernaut that they would be damn near unstoppable. And honestly, who wouldn't want a phone from two powerhouses of yesteryear tech? Both companies are floundering wildly and clinging to every ounce of credibility they have left. Just because the maker of crappy, buggy software and the maker of crappy, buggy hardware make a phone together doesn't mean it will be like two ugly people having a baby together - it doesn't guarantee a beautiful baby. Two negatives don't make a positive here.

So, the short answer is: "no." The long answer is "Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!"

Microsoft Abandons Zune

From Appleinsider:

Microsoft's direct effort to challenge Apple's iPod, introduced in 2006 under the Zune brand, is being abandoned after a failure to gain traction in the market.

Too bad, really. One doesn't know how great their stuff is unless you have utter crap to compare it to.

As I said back in July, "Is it just me, or does the word "thud" seem to describe everything in the post-Bill Gates era at Microsoft?"

What Do You Want Your Computer to Do?

Tuesday Pipe Dream: Sony Might Be Bought By Apple

From Appleinsider:

"A new rumor has pegged Apple and its $51 billion in cash and investments as a potential buyer of Sony..."

Quote me on this: bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Not a chance.

Microsoft would be a much better fit. They've always been a software company whose hardware is lacking. Buying Sony would automatically upgrade their hardware capabilities. And there's some good synergy in such an acquisition. Both companies are behemoth bureaucracies that were once seemingly unstoppable about 15 years ago but which have shot themselves in the foot so many times that they're having trouble finding a leg to stand on.

Might be a good way to put both companies out of their misery at the same time, come to think of it.

Flip Table Now

Compare this funny video from the Microsoft Mac Business Unit with this contrived "funeral" for the Blackberry and iPhone elsewhere in Microsoft by the Windows Phone 7 team:



Both celebrating a "release to manufacturing" of a product. Fun and light versus morbid and contrived. It's at once a fitting metaphor for the struggle between Apple and the non-MacBU Microsoft.

UPDATE: I love this quote from John Gruber at Daring Fireball:

Microsoft has never been cool, has never had good taste, but their lack of cool and lack of taste are spiraling out of control.

Deconstructing the MS BS

Microsoft has launched a "PC versus Mac" site to try to hold back the flood of people - especially students - switching to Macs. In a particularly brazen (and kinda funny) move, they've chosen to use on of the hallmarks of the Mac as a selling point - that "it just works."

And is it me, or is that chick just creepy looking?


Here are their selling points (with my commentary):


Macs might spoil your fun.
There are some things you simply can't do out of the box with a Mac like watch, pause, rewind, and record TV like a DVR.
I've yet to see a PC that you can watch like a TV and which not only picks up over-the-air TV signal, but also records it right out of the box, although I'd bet that there are a few. But to make it sound as if they all do it is as misleading as it comes.

It's showtime.
You can't get a Mac that ships with a Blu-ray player, TV tuner, Memory Stick reader, or built-in 3G wireless. You can with PCs running Windows 7.
True. You can't get a Mac that has a Blu-Ray player built-in. Point one for Microsoft. See my comments on the TV tuner above, but just because ONE MODEL from ONE MANUFACTURER comes with a TV tuner, can it really be touted as "PCs come with a TV tuner?" This one doesn't. Or this one. Or this one. And those are just the first three I happened to click on. That's a bait-and-switch, pure and simple. Macs don't come with Memory Stick readers, but modern Macs do come with SD Card slots. Microsoft is really splitting hairs by touting Sony's proprietary Memory Stick. I wonder how many PC models actually come with them, outside of models built by Sony? And once again, Macs don't have 3G wireless built in. But most PCs don't either. But not a disclaimer to that effect to be found anywhere on the page.

Game on!
Most of the world's most popular computer games aren't available for Macs. And Macs can't connect to an Xbox 360. PCs are ready to play.
What's most? 50%? Granted, the NEWST games aren't always available right away on the Mac, but that's certainly not true in all cases. It's widely known that Macs aren't built for hard-core gamers (but I bet a good MacPro would be a screamin' game machine), so another point for Microsoft on this one, sort of. And no, Macs can't connect to the X-Box 360. But who cares, really? I've never understood why one would want to hook a computer up to a game console, anyway. But to imply that games can't be played on a Mac is just wrong. I don't game anymore, but back in the day, I used to play Starcraft, Civilization, Diablo (and Diablo II), and Warcraft on my Mac. And I still can today if I wanted to.

Direct TV connection.
Most Macs can't hook up to your TV unless you buy a converter dongle. Many PCs running Windows 7 are designed to connect directly to TVs, so you can watch movies and see photos on the big screen.
Notice the language here: MOST MACS, MANY PCs. The truth here is that MOST PCs won't hook up to your TV without an adapter, either. And before I got my AppleTV for Christmas a couple of years ago, I used my Mac Mini to watch movies and see photos on my big screen with no problem at all. Outright deceptive.


Macs can take time to learn.
The computer that's easiest to use is typically the one you already know how to use. While some may say Macs are easy, the reality is that they can come with a learning curve. PCs running Windows 7 look and work more like the computers you're familiar with, so you can get up and running quickly.
This one is hilarious to me simply because Windows is a Mac OS knock-off from the very beginning. And it's been widely reported that Windows 7 used the Mac OS as its inspiration. And "get up and running quickly?" Hah! Just try to set up a PC from unboxing to work-ready in under 15 minutes. I've done it repeatedly with Macs, most recently with my new Mac Pro at work, which took a total of 7 minutes to get up and running out of the box. If you count the (amazingly easy) transfer of files from my old machine, it was 45 minutes - applications, documents, preferences, bookmarks, EVERYTHING. Try that with a PC.


Working smoothly.
Things just don't work the same way on Macs if you're used to a PC. For example, the mouse works differently. And many of the shortcuts you're familiar with don't work the same way on a Mac.
The MOUSE works differently? BULLSHIT! I've used PC mice for years. That arguement may have had merit ten or twelve years ago when the Mac still only recognized single-button mice. But I've been using the right-click for more than six years now. And it works EXACTLY the same way on a Mac as on a PC. Even Apple's Magic Mouse works on a PC. And as for "shortcuts" not not working the same on a Mac... buh-huh? Maybe it's because on a Mac things are easier to find so you don't need to have all kinds of crazy shortcuts everywhere. Flat out false. And shame on you, Microsoft.

Use Windows 7 to simplify your life.
Windows 7 was designed to make it simpler to do the tasks you do every day, with features that the Mac doesn't have. For example, the new Snap feature makes it easy to view two documents side by side.
Huh. Two documents side by side???? Well SHAZAM, that IS cool! Oh, wait. Macs have had Expose since 2004, which lets you view open windows, documents and applications side by side with the press of a button. And if Snap is a new feature, why does it even exist if people are already using its functionality without it?

Touch and go.
Unlike Macs, many PCs running Windows 7 support Touch, so you can browse online newspapers, flick through photo albums, and shuffle files and folders—using nothing but your fingers. PCs with a fingerprint reader even let you log in with just a swipe of your finger.
Supporting Touch and having a touch-enabled computer are two completely different things. How many laptops (or desktops) have touch screens? I've yet to see one in the wild. Hell, I've yet to see one in a computer store. Honestly, MS... You're trying to use TOUCH as point against the company that makes the iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch? Desperate and ineffective. No one thinks of Microsoft when they think "touch." They think of mobile devices, and probably ones made by Apple. And BTW, Microsoft, Mac portables (MacBooks and MacBook Pros) have trackpads that allow people to duplicate the functionality of their iPhones and iPads. Heck, there's even a new Magic Trackpad that allows the same functionalities on desktop machines, too. So, yeah, I guess all Macs fall into the "touch" category now, too.


Macs don't work as well at work or at school.
If most of the computers in your office or school run Windows you may find it harder to get things done with a Mac.
Wow. Wait. Let me catch my breath. Oh, wow. So they're honestly trying to say that if your company or school uses PCs that your Mac will somehow be crippled? Not unless it's running Windows in Boot Camp and catches a virus. I can personally attest to exactly the OPPOSITE. I've got the only Mac in our company - for more than five years now - and I have no problems getting my work done, and hella-quick. Macs have always played well with PCs. The same cannot be said of PCs. To this day, Windows boxes refuse to acknowledge Macs on a network. That's on Microsoft, not on Apple.

Sharing documents and spreadsheets.
If you use Apple's productivity suite, sharing files with PC users can be tricky. Your documents might not look right and your spreadsheets might not calculate correctly.
A very fine distinction, but true. If you create a Keynote presentation and try to export it to Powerpoint, it will, in fact, look like shit. But that's because Powerpoint is a shitty piece of software that, frankly, Microsoft should be ashamed to be charging for. Try importing a Powerpoint presentation into Keynote. It still looks shitty, but that's because it looked shitty in Powerpoint. And yet again, this is a red herring that belongs in 1995. Macs and PCs have been able to seamlessly share - and open and edit - Word, Excel and Powerpoint files for more than a decade with no problems. I do it at work all the time. Shameless, Microsoft. You make a lot of money from Office for Mac. You know that it works just fine.

Giving presentations.
You'll have to buy a separate hardware dongle to plug your Mac into a standard VGA projector. Most PCs with Windows 7 hook up easily.
Nice argument. "Most PCs use the same crappy, outdated technology that they've had for more than twenty years." It's a chicken-and-egg question: do projectors still have a VGA port because crappy PCs still use them (despite better, digital options) or do crappy PCs still have VGA ports because projectors still have them? It doesn't matter, though, because MOST PCs running Windows 7 will still be showing the presentation using Powerpoint, so it's going to look like shit, anyway.

Protecting your drives.
On a Mac, out of the box, you can only encrypt your home folder. With Windows 7 Ultimate, you can encrypt your entire hard drive and even USB drives. So your stuff can be safer wherever you go.
Whatever. The fact is that most everything the typical Mac user uses - documents, movies, music and preferences (such as bookmarks and web cache) are stored in the Home folder. Applications and system files aren't encrypted, but a simple password for each user (which CAN be set up directly out of the box) can effectively protect the machine from most prying eyes.


Macs don't like to share.
At least half the fun of having a computer is sharing the stuff that matters to you with other people. This is harder to do on a Mac.
My head just frigging exploded. Have you ever tried to set up sharing on a PC? I have. Never mind that it depends on which "edition" you have installed as to whether it can share at all. The setup process is confusing, convoluted and the exact opposite of easy. On a Mac, all you have to do is check a single check box.

Securely share your movies, music, and photos.
With a Mac, it's harder to set up secure sharing for your photos, music & movies, documents, and even printers with other computers on your home network. With HomeGroup, it's easy to connect all the computers in your house running Windows 7.
One word: bonjour, aka "zero configuration sharing." It's ridiculously easy to share ANYTHING on a network securely with a Mac. I've been doing it for over a decade, both at home and in the office. Streaming movies and music from another computer is as simple as opening iTunes and clicking on a shared library. And it works on a PC, too, foo. It's almost as if they're not even trying to tell even a partial truth anymore...

It's easy with a PC.
On a Mac, you have to manually set up photo sharing, manually set up music and movie sharing, manually set up file sharing, and manually set up printer sharing. It's easy to automatically and securely network with all the computers in your house when they're running Windows 7.
I give up. See my previous comments. All of this is just false. And you know what? Al the computers don't have to be running the most recent version of Mac OS in order to share. Suck on that, Microsoft.


Macs might not like your PC stuff.
Plain and simple, if you're a PC user, lots of your favorite stuff just might not work on a Mac. With PCs outselling Macs 10 to 1, the reality is that most computer software is developed to run on PCs.
Yeah. Macs downright hate .exe files. And viruses. And spyware. And malware, all of which are developed to run on PCs.

Hassle-free files at work.
Apple's productivity suite file formats won't open in Microsoft Office on PCs. This can be a real hassle for Mac users sharing work documents with PC users.
That's true. Word on the PC won't even offer the ability to import a Pages document. Excel won't open a Numbers document, and I've already shat all over Powerpoint. But the truth is that most Mac users don't use Apple's production suite. They use Office for the Mac, which will integrate seamlessly with their PC counterparts. And the fact that Microsoft won't offer compatibility with Mac documents isn't Apple's fault. It's Microsoft's.

Programs you already know.
If there's a Mac version of a program you need, you'll have to buy it again and relearn how to use it on a Mac.
Not exactly. Word on the Mac does work differently that its PC brother, but word is that's a GOOD thing. Honestly, have you TRIED to use Word on the PC lately? It's crap. Most applications that are available on both the Mac and the PC work exactly the same way, although the interface may be different (such as Photoshop). But Dreamweaver on the Pc will output html code just as well (or as poorly) as on a Mac. You'll just have a better experience using it on a Mac. And in the case of typography, there's a very BIG difference between the Mac and the PC and how it renders type. PC type simply looks like ass.


Macs don't let you choose.
PCs give you a lot more choice and capabilities for your money. You can get the PC you want, in the size and color you want, with the features you want. You just don't have as many options with a Mac.
Memo to Microsoft: the '90s are over. And while PCs languished in beige hell for years, Apple created the iMac in an array of colors. People stick their PCs under their desk for a reason: THEY'RE UGLY.


Loaded with features.
You can't get a Mac with a Blu-ray player, TV tuner, Memory Stick reader, or built-in 3G wireless. PCs running Windows 7 often come with features that aren't available on even the highest end Macs, including Blu-ray, eSATA, multi-format card readers, Touch, and mobile broadband.
Oh, hell. Not this again. Regurgitate much? Not counting on anyone actually reading all your backwash, Microsoft? See above. Repeat as necessary.

Available in your favorite color.
Macs only come in white or silver. PCs are available in a full spectrum of colors across a range of price points.
Nice selling point, Microsoft... "Macs only come in tasteful colors." And it's not true, either. MacBooks also come in black, liars. And there are also Macs "cross a range of price points," from the dirt-cheap (but still very capable) Mac Mini all the way up to the powerhouse beast 12-core Mac Pro. True, there are no $200 Mac laptops or netbooks. But you get what you pay for, even with PCs. But thanks for not trotting out the old "Macs are more expensive than PCs" garbage. Ever since the switch to Intel processors in 2005, it simply isn't true, either (not that that has stopped you in the rest of your Mac-bashing site).


More digital media.
With PCs running Windows 7, you can play the videos and music stored on your home PC while you're on the go, for free. Apple charges $99/year for its online service.
There are free alternatives to Mobile Me (which, come on, Apple, is quite overpriced). But let's deconstruct that sentence. "You can play videos and music stored on your home PC while you're on the go..." Kinda like with an iPod? With a Mac, you can copy over the files and play them anywhere, too. Or are they trying to say that you can stream the video and music from your home computer to another device somewhere? You can do that with a Mac. But once again, Microsoft, don't let the truth stand in your way. Your carefully chosen words and phrases aren't fooling me, although they might fool my grandma and other people who go into Best Buy and say "I need a computer that has the WIFIs."

Frankly, I'm surprised that the FTC doesn't have something to say about all the blatantly false and misleading things contained in Microsoft's anti-Mac page. There's not a disclaimer to be found. But at the end of it all, Microsoft is just making themselves look silly. More and more people - especially students who know how to do all this stuff if they want to - are using Macs. And those people know that Microsoft is full of shit. And just like I'm doing, they'll tell they're friends. Word of mouth is more powerful than any website.

Another One Bites The Dust

From AdAge:

In what may be one of the fastest launch-to-failure paths ever taken by a major marketer, Microsoft's Kin, the company's first phone product, is being discontinued just six weeks after its May 13 launch.

The Kin One was priced at $49.99 while the Kin Two was a full $99.99 after their respective $100 rebates, coupled with a mandatory $30 monthly service fee that many consumers resisted. MarketWatch first reported that Microsoft only sold 500 phones during Kin's first six weeks, a figure that Microsoft representatives would not confirm or deny. Even a last-minute price slash on June 24, knocking $20 off the Kin One and $50 off Kin Two, appeared to be too little too late.

The Kin's failure echoes Microsoft's other expensive grab for Apple's share -- the Zune, which in 2006 tried to steal a hefty portion of the iPod's overwhelming command of the MP3 market. After nearly $30 million in measured media during its first nine months, the music player only mustered a 2.2% share of the MP3 market, according to NPD.

Microsoft's Windows mobile operating system has been steadily losing share and in first quarter powered only 6.8% of smartphones sold, according to Gartner, behind Symbian, Research in Motion, Apple and Android. That's down from 10.2% for the year-earlier quarter.

Microsoft's Windows 7 phone is expected to launch in the fourth quarter of this year.

Is it just me, or does the word "thud" seem to describe everything in the post-Bill Gates era at Microsoft?

What Would Happen if Microsoft Designed US Currency?

They might as well. It can't get any uglier than this.

European Union Drops Long-Running Antitrust Case Against Microsoft

From the NYTimes:

European regulators dropped their antitrust case against Microsoft on Wednesday after the company agreed to offer customers a choice of rival Web browsers. The settlement ends what could have been a second costly legal battle for the American software giant.

Good for Microsoft. It's about time something fell their way. Good things happen when you don't try to bully your customers.

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF USER INTELLECT BASED ON ANTI-PRODUCTIVITY APPLICATIONS INCLUDED IN OPERATING SYSTEMS

A must see. Follow the link.

Google Should Make Apple Beg For Maps Navigation?

From TechCrunch, via Matt:

When Google announced what is clearly the best car navigation application on any mobile today, it didn’t just take a swipe at GPS navigation companies such as Garmin and TomTom. It took a swipe at Apple.

Beyond the advanced features of the Google Maps Navigation app (voice search, crowdsourced traffic data, Street View navigation), what makes the app noteworthy is that it launched on Google’s own Android phones first rather than on the iPhone. By doing so, Google is putting Apple on notice that it is no longer reserving its best apps for the iPhone.

So let me get this straight... Google, who now makes cell phone software, is supposed to be expected to port its products to the iPhone first, before making it available on its own platform? Ridiculous. It's completely reasonable that a company design for its own platform and port it to another later. It's doing the same with Chrome, although it released it for the PC before the Mac to get the PC geeks - the ones who would most easily switch to their forthcoming Chrome OS and evangelize for it - excited. Apple did the same with iTunes and Safari.

This is but the latest sign of a growing rift between Apple and Google. A couple years ago, when the iPhone first launched, Google and Apple had a strong partnership. At the time, Google CEO Eric Schmidt described the relationship as so close that it was akin to merging “without merging. Each company should do the absolutely best thing they can do every time.” Google supposedly didn’t need to creat its own phone, because it could simply create software for the iPhone. And, in fact, some of the best apps on the iPhone—Mail, Maps, YouTube, Search—were developed by Google.

Only two years later, Apple and Google no longer have such a cozy relationship. A new Android phone is now launching every other week, it seems. Feeling the competitive threat, Apple started blocking Google apps such as Google Voice and Latitude from getting on the iPhone, and Schmidt stepped down from Apple’s board (although there were also other reasons for that having to do with antitrust scrutiny).

First of all, Google isn't creating it's own phone. It's creating a software platform for mobile devices that phone carriers are using increasingly to power their phones (which is also increasingly the shortfall of Android phones.) Google is a software company. All they're doing is what they do. At least, so far, they've had the good sense to stick to that. Hopefully, they've learned something from Microsoft's mistakes. It's very tough to be Apple - that is, to make beautiful hardware and great software. Most companies have a tough enough time doing one or the other. But if there's one company that could do it - it would probably be Google. I'm just sayin'.

Also, Apple didn't block the Google apps because they were Google apps. It's been well documented that Apple had a problem with the UI in the Google apps and the way they changed the navigation scheme to mimic core functions of the iPhone OS in a non-iPhoney way. They've blocked thousands of other apps for doing the same thing.

And as noted, Schmidt stepped down under anti-trust pressure, not because of a rift with Apple.

So Apple starts to back away from letting Google take over the iPhone with all the best apps by rejecting them. And now we have Google’s response: a big middle finger. If Apple is going to make it hard to get on the iPhone, then Google will stop giving Apple its best apps first and use them to make its own Android platform more appealing.

Let's keep in mind here the timeline. Google develops and releases Android. Then a year later, the Google Voice app is rejected. It was Google who gave the finger first by developing Android. But they wanted in on the action. It's understandable. I'm not saying it's a tit-for-tat thing - I don't think it is - but let's be honest about how things really went down. The timeline is important.

And let's also keep in mind that the Google Voice app was rejected following Google using it's own API calls in its Google Search app for the iPhone. Google did it because it was Google and I think Apple was looking closer at their apps the next time around for any shenanigans. Apple took a lot of heat for approving an app using private APIs that other developers didn't have access to.

Apple is in a terrible position here because the future of mobile apps are Web apps, and Google excels at making those. Apple needs Google, it’s most dangerous competitor in the mobile Web market, to keep building apps for the iPhone. Google would be foolish not to since the iPhone still has the largest reach of any modern Web phone. But it will no longer be a priority.

Let's just be honest here. Everyone needs Google. Everything on every platform is built around Google these days, which I find dangerous and is why I'm not all over the Google bandwagon like a lot of people.

The sad thing is that Apple has been here before—with Microsoft. In the late 1990s, Apple had to beg Microsoft to keep building Office for Macs. Now it may be in the same position with Google. There may be more than 85,000 apps in the App Store, but it is only a handful which actually drive purchases. If Google Maps Navigation becomes one of those types of killer apps, Apple might need to do some begging first before Google goes through effort to make it for the iPhone.

Only a handful drive purchases? Has the author bothered to check out an Apple earnings report? Watch a keynote, maybe? People are buying apps like water. And most of the paid apps are games, which have nothing to do with Google.

Apple doesn't need to grovel at Google's feet. They are strategic partners, both of whom make a similar product, but with differences. Just like Apple and Microsoft. As of this morning, you can still but Microsoft Office for the Mac. Microsoft doesn't kill Office for the Mac because they make money - a lot of money - by making it. And so it goes with Google. They make a ton of money from the iPhone platform, but from search, not from selling software.

And as for Apple and Microsoft in the '90s... Apple had to get in bed with Microsoft because at the time it was its only hope. The perceived animosity between the two companies - at the time - was mostly generated by Apple users, and the hard-core users at that. The real reason Apple went to Microsoft was because it needed a quick infusion of cash while it got back on its feet. Back then, it made pretty crappy, unpopular products with a dwindling market share. That argument can't be made for the iPhone.

Microsoft Shocked 'Family Guy' Humor Includes Incest, Holocaust Jokes

Microsoft has pulled the plug on its previously-announced deal with Fox to imbed Windows 7 references into The Family Guy.

From Advertising Age:

NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- Turns out Seth MacFarlane isn't PC enough to be a PC. Microsoft was set to sponsor a prime time special by the "Family Guy" creator as part of its Windows 7 media blitz, but was somehow surprised when the typically MacFarlane-esque fare didn't exactly "fit with the Windows brand."

Variety reports that three days after crowing about its new Seth MacFarlane deal to the world, it pulled the plug after getting a look at the content, which included "riffs on deaf people, the Holocaust, feminine hygiene and incest," the company pulled out of the project.

How anyone could get caught off-guard by the kind of humor on Family Guy, which has been around for years?

"Holy crap! You mean there's potty humor on there??? Maybe we should have watched some back-episodes of the show before we built our marketing campaign around it!!!"

Ridiculous.

Ballmer on the Today Show

A couple of quick thoughts:

Oops. That's a MacBook Pro on the screen in the background.

"Hundreds of millions of users" of Vista???? Really? If it was that big a success, Microsoft wouldn't have wet all over themselves trying to get Windows 7 out the door as fast as they could or play down Vista as much.

And is it just me, or was there no real talk about any real features or actual reasons for anyone to , you know, actually upgrade to Windows 7? The touchscreen PC is cool, but what's new that would make my grandma's life easier by using Windows 7?

A missed opportunity by Steve Ballmer.

Happy Upgrading, Windows Users...

Quote of the Day...

"One week from today, Microsoft will try to shake the stink of Vista."

-Ken Ray

Message from Xbox Live

Received from Xbox Live today:

Dear Destructo,

We are contacting you because we have been unable to charge your credit card for your Xbox Live 12 mo. Gold Membership service(s) being billed to you through Microsoft Online Services. The following credit card is the current payment method on your billing account:

Credit card type: XXXXXXX

To avoid an interruption of your services or to reactivate suspended service(s), please provide a valid credit card and a current expiration date. If payment is due for other Microsoft services purchased with the above card, those services may also be affected.

To check pricing details, and to confirm your account information and payment options, go to: http://billing.microsoft.com
If you have already resolved this issue, please disregard this notice and accept our thanks.

Thank you for using Microsoft Online Services.

Xbox LIVE Team

Dear Xbox Live,

I tried contacting you, but your shitty website just ran me around in circles. So now it's this.

Suck it.

Regards,

Destructo

Use Windows to Access Your Bank Online at Your Own Risk

From the Washington Post:

An investigative series I've been writing about organized cyber crime gangs stealing millions of dollars from small to mid-sized businesses has generated more than a few responses from business owners who were concerned about how best to protect themselves from this type of fraud.

The simplest, most cost-effective answer I know of? Don't use Microsoft Windows when accessing your bank account online.

I do not offer this recommendation lightly (and at the end of this column you'll find a link to another column wherein I explain an easy-to-use alternative). But I have interviewed dozens of victim companies that lost anywhere from $10,000 to $500,000 dollars because of a single malware infection. I have heard stories worthy of a screenplay about the myriad ways cyber crooks are evading nearly every security obstacle the banks put in their way.

But regardless of the methods used by the bank or the crooks, all of the attacks shared a single, undeniable common denominator: They succeeded because the bad guys were able to plant malicious software that gave them complete control over the victim's Windows computer.

Why is the operating system important? Virtually all of the data-stealing malware in circulation today is built to attack Windows systems, and will simply fail to run on non-Windows computers. Also, the Windows-based malware employed in each of these recent online attacks against businesses was so sophisticated that it made it extremely difficult for banks to tell the difference between a transaction initiated by their customers and a transfer set in motion by hackers who had hijacked that customer's PC.

Yet another reason to use a Mac.

Trouble Trying to Quit

A few years ago, I had an addiction that I'm a bit embarrassed to speak about. It was the first year we lived in Brenham, and Kristi was in Houston teaching summer school for much of the summer, so I had a lot of free time to myself. And that's when it happened.

I know it was an addiction because I spent every available moment doing it. I went so far as to try to hide it and, later, to try to justify it. It was horrible. I was a prisoner. But, God help me, I loved it.

At first I just tried it - just to see if it was for me. I had friends that had tried it before and told me that I'd like it. At first it was free, too. Then about a month in - once I was good and hooked - the money came due if I wanted more. So I paid.

Oh, sorry. What was my addiction? I joined X-Box Live.

After that glorious summer, when Kristi and Kayci came back home, our lives returned pretty much to normal. Oh, I still had my addiction. But I wasn't as blatant about it. I would stay up late after Kristi had gone to bed or get up really early in the morning to play.

But over time, my addiction began to fall away. It was probably a combination of the realization of exactly how much time I was wasting playing video games as well as a busier work load at work and with freelance work. And we also had more family time. And a new baby. But slowly I played less and less.

Okay. I admit. I got tired of getting my ass handed to me in Halo by twelve-year-olds. There's no description for the kind of rage you feel at a some pre-pubescent kid from Georgia or somewhere taunting you in your headset (yes- I wore the headset.)

These days, I hardly ever play games online anymore. I still play the occasional video game, but I don't spend hours and hours doing it as I used to. It's much more in moderation. And I like it that way.

In the past year I've probably played online at X-Box Live a total of five times, each time getting thoroughly bored or frustrated. So when I got an e-mail this morning telling me that my account is set to renew next month, it was a no-brainer that I wanted to cancel the service. It's $50 a year that I don't need to spend.

So I followed the instruction in the e-mail about where to go to cancel your membership. And now I'm just pissed off. I've been clicking in circles for twenty minutes trying to find where to cancel. Even the page entitled "Cancel Your Xbox LIVE Membership" only leads you back to the beginning to the page you see when you first log into your account! ARGH!!!

It shouldn't surprise you that X-Box is owned by Microsoft. It's typical of their "support" style.

So here I sit with a subscription to X-Box Live that I neither use nor want and that I can't quit.

But I'll have the last laugh. A few months ago, Kristi and I cut up our credit cards and cancelled our accounts. So when old Microsoft tries to bill that Discover card $50 for X-Box Live, they'll get NOTHING! And I'll be vindicated because that's about what their support site is worth.

Microsoft and Yahoo Reach Deal on Search

From the New York Times:

Microsoft Corporation and Yahoo announced on Wednesday that
they had agreed to collaborate on Internet search and
advertising, in a challenge to Google's dominance.

Yawn. Two formerly relevant companies getting in bed together to make an irrelevant child.

Microsoft Says You're Wrong and Stupid

Microsoft thinks that after Windows 7 debuts that people will change their perceptions of Windows Vista.

"I think people will look back on Vista after the Windows 7 release and realize that there were actually a bunch of good things there," [Steve] Guggenheimer said in a recent interview. "So it'll actually be interesting to see in two years what the perception is of Vista."

I'd fire that guy right on the spot. Who is he kidding? This is someone who has absolutely no clue about how the public's perception of a brand or a product work. Millions of people aren't suddenly going to change their minds that Vista wasn't a complete debacle, especially if Windows 7 is a better product. People just aren't wired that way. The only thing that would cause people to look back fondly at their good old Windows Vista days is if Windows 7 is a complete piece of crap. And for Microsoft's sake, let's hope that that's not the case.

Take Apple, for example. Perceptions of Apple are just starting to come back around to overwhelming positive after a decade of mismanagement and crappy products that began in the late '80s. The Mac still has a stigma that it's an overpriced computer, even though that hasn't been true for almost five years. And just last week I had to answer, yet again, the question "but what if I have to send files to someone on a PC? Does it run Microsoft Office?" For those who are wondering - Office files have worked seamlessly across platforms since at least 1998. It took almost a full generation for Apple's momentum to swing around. They've always had their rabid and loyal fan base, just like most companies who make products do. But we're talking about the general public.

But that makes my point. People, much less a complete society, just aren't going to all suddenly change their mind about something that is part of the zeitgeist. Richard Nixon was a pretty damn good president and did a lot of great things, but no one thinks about that. Think about Nixon and you think about scandal and corruption and shame. A couple of decades haven't even changed that perception.

Microsoft is kidding itself.

via Channel Web