The New York Times asks why Apple can sell computers from retail stores while other companies like Sony, Dell and Gateway can't.
Apple stores do well because they are destinations. People will travel to see an Apple store either for cool new technology or to get help from the Genius Bar.
The Genius Bar is an important aspect to this, this enhances the brand and can only be done if your margins are high enough to afford to pay for the Geniuses.
Which is an interesting contrast to Dell's deal with Walmart. Once again, Dell have decided to follow the cheap route. That's fine, but it further locks Dell into the bottom end of the IT market.
The stack 'em high, sell 'em cheap model doesn't work for IT products: Computers are not baked beans.
To survive in the IT industry you need to establish relationships with your customers. But relationships cost time and money, which you can't do if you are selling cheap boxes to the bottom of the market. Apple can, and are, doing this while Dell can't afford it and Sony doesn't understand how to do it.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Protecting children online: Get their computers out of the bedroom
The story of the Tweed Heads magistrate breaking down and weeping is touching and tragic and it illustrates why all parents need to supervise their kid's web usage.
This particular pervert took advantage of kids as young as nine, meeting them through chat rooms and exploiting through webcams. In this particular case, a teenage girl was manipulated into sexually abusing her younger brother in front of her webcam.
Jeff Linden, the magistrate who heard this Australian case, calls for more internet filtering. I'm not sure this will avoid such horrific cases. Perverts like the perpetrator of this crime will find a way to exploit kids wherever they congregate, be it on MySpace or the local playground.
In my view, parents need to supervise Internet usage. The Internet is like a big city and there are parts of any city where most adults would feel safe visting, let alone children. No parent would allow their children to wander around big cities unsupervised.
Yet this is what many do with the Internet. Not only do a lot of parents allow the kids to use the computers in their own room, but they also allow them to use equipment like webcams.
It's bad enough letting kids have TVs in their rooms and allowing the unmitigated, brain numbing trash into their bedrooms. But the Internet invites far more trouble.
Forget filtering. Supervise your kids.
On a slightly different topic, it's clear there's a chilling effect on Australian reporting by not mentioning the name of the perpetrators of these acts. The reason's clear: Australian judges have shown they will abandon trials and even cite reporters for contempt if they name anyone who might face such charges .
This chilling effect worked with me, I deliberately re-wrote this post to remove names and links to non-Australian articles. I'd hate to see one of these online predators getting away because their lawyers can claim a blog like this is responsible for them not being able to get a fair trial.
This particular pervert took advantage of kids as young as nine, meeting them through chat rooms and exploiting through webcams. In this particular case, a teenage girl was manipulated into sexually abusing her younger brother in front of her webcam.
Jeff Linden, the magistrate who heard this Australian case, calls for more internet filtering. I'm not sure this will avoid such horrific cases. Perverts like the perpetrator of this crime will find a way to exploit kids wherever they congregate, be it on MySpace or the local playground.
In my view, parents need to supervise Internet usage. The Internet is like a big city and there are parts of any city where most adults would feel safe visting, let alone children. No parent would allow their children to wander around big cities unsupervised.
Yet this is what many do with the Internet. Not only do a lot of parents allow the kids to use the computers in their own room, but they also allow them to use equipment like webcams.
It's bad enough letting kids have TVs in their rooms and allowing the unmitigated, brain numbing trash into their bedrooms. But the Internet invites far more trouble.
Forget filtering. Supervise your kids.
On a slightly different topic, it's clear there's a chilling effect on Australian reporting by not mentioning the name of the perpetrators of these acts. The reason's clear: Australian judges have shown they will abandon trials and even cite reporters for contempt if they name anyone who might face such charges .
This chilling effect worked with me, I deliberately re-wrote this post to remove names and links to non-Australian articles. I'd hate to see one of these online predators getting away because their lawyers can claim a blog like this is responsible for them not being able to get a fair trial.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Symantec update screws China
Why am I not surprised a Norton update screws up a few million Chinese PCs?
The undermining of the cheap laptop
I previously noted Microsoft's undermining of the OLPC per child. Now John Negroponte has criticised Intel for the same thing.
It's a shame these people can't work together. Getting this project out would be one of the greatest long term achievements for the computer industry. It would probably result in more computers being sold as well.
It's a shame these people can't work together. Getting this project out would be one of the greatest long term achievements for the computer industry. It would probably result in more computers being sold as well.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Dell's woes continue
The New York Attorney General is suing Dell for not delivering on it's customer service. This is not surprising as Dell have really soiled their reputation in the last few years.
Dell's spokesman claims these complaints are from a "a small fraction of Dell's consumer transactions in New York". A read of their 161 comments to date on the ABC story indicate otherwise.
The big problem for Dell is they've chased the bottom of the market. The consequences were inevitable: To maintain margins they had to lowered levels of service and the cheap prices attract the toughest customers.
Computers are a difficult, complex product at the best of time. As I pointed out in a previous post, selling technology is not like selling baked beans. Pile and high and sell 'em cheap only works if you can fob off aggrieved customers when the technology fails or is beyond them.
For retailers, this has been quite easy. They job fob the customer off to the manufacturer. Dell's cutting the middle man means they have nowhere to fob the customer off to.
The problem for the channel and direct seller like Dell is the bottom of the market is populated with demanding customers with tight budgets. These people want to buy a Hyundai but they want Lexus level support.
There's no way around this if price is your only selling point. The key is not to go to the bottom of the market. Stay in the mid to high range where you'll sell far fewer computers but you'll keep your margins and reputation.
This is largely the strategy of Apple. Although they do lapse sometimes.
For myself, I don't know why Dell chose this path, my suspicion is that the stock market and renumeration agreements were rewarding unit sales numbers, so the bosses didn't care as long as more boxes were sold. Now they are suffering for chasing the bottom of the market, just as Packard Bell did.
I suspect it's too late for Dell to overcome the "cheap but dodgy" label. It might be time for Dell to split their range, keep the Dell brand for the cheapies and rebadge their high level computers and support. Just as Toyota did with Lexus.
The sad thing is the Japanese worked hard to associate their brands with quality. They took a generation to shed the "cheap but dodgy" label. Dell have done the opposite and trashed a good name.
Dell's spokesman claims these complaints are from a "a small fraction of Dell's consumer transactions in New York". A read of their 161 comments to date on the ABC story indicate otherwise.
The big problem for Dell is they've chased the bottom of the market. The consequences were inevitable: To maintain margins they had to lowered levels of service and the cheap prices attract the toughest customers.
Computers are a difficult, complex product at the best of time. As I pointed out in a previous post, selling technology is not like selling baked beans. Pile and high and sell 'em cheap only works if you can fob off aggrieved customers when the technology fails or is beyond them.
For retailers, this has been quite easy. They job fob the customer off to the manufacturer. Dell's cutting the middle man means they have nowhere to fob the customer off to.
The problem for the channel and direct seller like Dell is the bottom of the market is populated with demanding customers with tight budgets. These people want to buy a Hyundai but they want Lexus level support.
There's no way around this if price is your only selling point. The key is not to go to the bottom of the market. Stay in the mid to high range where you'll sell far fewer computers but you'll keep your margins and reputation.
This is largely the strategy of Apple. Although they do lapse sometimes.
For myself, I don't know why Dell chose this path, my suspicion is that the stock market and renumeration agreements were rewarding unit sales numbers, so the bosses didn't care as long as more boxes were sold. Now they are suffering for chasing the bottom of the market, just as Packard Bell did.
I suspect it's too late for Dell to overcome the "cheap but dodgy" label. It might be time for Dell to split their range, keep the Dell brand for the cheapies and rebadge their high level computers and support. Just as Toyota did with Lexus.
The sad thing is the Japanese worked hard to associate their brands with quality. They took a generation to shed the "cheap but dodgy" label. Dell have done the opposite and trashed a good name.
Microsoft Update failing
We've been seeing a lot of problems with the automatic Microsoft Updates program and now it's hit our systems. My computer is hanging with the update processes hogging up to 80% of resources.
Having tried everything suggested by Microsoft, the only solution appears to be to disable the Microsoft Update and go back to the Windows Update. That means running Office updates manually.
I haven't tried to update Office manually for some while, so I wasn't surprised to find the site changed. The irritating thing is the site prompts you to the Windows Update page. Problems with that are why I'm doing this manually.
Luckily, there's a tiny link below to the Office update page where we can update Office and only office.
But, Microsoft being Microsoft we have to validate Office before we can download.
Is it just me that's sick of having to validate my Microsoft products every second time I visit their websites.
Perhaps if Microsoft spent more time testing their products and updates and less time worrying about validating their products, we might get fewer of these problems.
Having tried everything suggested by Microsoft, the only solution appears to be to disable the Microsoft Update and go back to the Windows Update. That means running Office updates manually.
I haven't tried to update Office manually for some while, so I wasn't surprised to find the site changed. The irritating thing is the site prompts you to the Windows Update page. Problems with that are why I'm doing this manually.
Luckily, there's a tiny link below to the Office update page where we can update Office and only office.
But, Microsoft being Microsoft we have to validate Office before we can download.
Is it just me that's sick of having to validate my Microsoft products every second time I visit their websites.
Perhaps if Microsoft spent more time testing their products and updates and less time worrying about validating their products, we might get fewer of these problems.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Get your web servers right
I've just spent ten minutes filling in a feedback survey for a major corporation. The aim of the survey is to measure how reliable customers find the company's website.
It crashed with an SQL error when I pressed submit.
I'm amazed at how large organisations have trouble like this. The ticketing woes of Cricket Australia come to mind. There's many other examples.
I don't know how much these companies spend on websites, but they need to insist these services can deal with peak demands.
There's little point in having a pretty website when it crashes at critical times.
It crashed with an SQL error when I pressed submit.
I'm amazed at how large organisations have trouble like this. The ticketing woes of Cricket Australia come to mind. There's many other examples.
I don't know how much these companies spend on websites, but they need to insist these services can deal with peak demands.
There's little point in having a pretty website when it crashes at critical times.
The perils of being a tech
It's dangerous admitting you know something about computers at parties as you'll often find yourself being asked to have a look at the host's dodgy system and you spend the time in PC Hell.
Jeremy Allison describes just such an evening in his ZDNet blog. He foolishly agreed to help setup a relative's laptop and found himself in a hole.
The big problem with IT support is that something simple can turn very bad very quickly and often from an angle you didn't expect.
Jeremy's experience is a good example as the trial edition of MS Office 2007 which bought him undone.
The solution involved re-downloading the Microsoft Office trial. He's lucky he's not in Australia as his relatives might have been on an uncapped 200Mb plan and that download would have cost half the price of the Office 2007 home edition.
Jeremy doesn't say how long this debacle took him to resolve, but my guess is he wasted many hours with the problem.
This illustrates why tech support is hard and why merely "knowing something about computers" does not qualify you to become a tech.
It also shows why do it yourself support is a recipe for frustration and a great deal of lost time. Small businesses that go the DIY path often waste a lot of their own time and end up with a substandard system.
On another aspect, I hadn't closely looked at the trial MS Office products and didn't realise copy and paste was disabled along with the "save as" function.
This is dangerous stuff for the typical computer user. It basically traps customers into buying the new product. We'll be recommending avoiding the trial edition once we confirm this.
Jeremy Allison describes just such an evening in his ZDNet blog. He foolishly agreed to help setup a relative's laptop and found himself in a hole.
The big problem with IT support is that something simple can turn very bad very quickly and often from an angle you didn't expect.
Jeremy's experience is a good example as the trial edition of MS Office 2007 which bought him undone.
The solution involved re-downloading the Microsoft Office trial. He's lucky he's not in Australia as his relatives might have been on an uncapped 200Mb plan and that download would have cost half the price of the Office 2007 home edition.
Jeremy doesn't say how long this debacle took him to resolve, but my guess is he wasted many hours with the problem.
This illustrates why tech support is hard and why merely "knowing something about computers" does not qualify you to become a tech.
It also shows why do it yourself support is a recipe for frustration and a great deal of lost time. Small businesses that go the DIY path often waste a lot of their own time and end up with a substandard system.
On another aspect, I hadn't closely looked at the trial MS Office products and didn't realise copy and paste was disabled along with the "save as" function.
This is dangerous stuff for the typical computer user. It basically traps customers into buying the new product. We'll be recommending avoiding the trial edition once we confirm this.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Collapsing home automation markets
The news that US electronics retail Tweeter is on the verge of bankrupcy is not surprising given the state of the computer and home automation industries.
The problem for retailers is the market is largely driven by price. The large chains and big brands have discounted themselves into a corner. The only way to make a profit is to move in bulk.
While this business model is good if you are selling baked beans, technology doesn't quite work that way. It's labour intensive and has much higher overheads than a loaf of bread or carton of milk. This model only survives in the technology retail sectors while customers are in a buying frenzy.
What I suspect's happened in the US industry is the downturn in the housing market has cooled the buying frenzy. In Australia, the housing market hasn't declined to the point that it's affecting consumer buying, but it might soon.
The slim margins have already affected specialist retailers. Hi-Fi shops are closing up and I've previously discussed computer shops closing. The box movers have pretty well won the technology retailing war with only the premium, top end shops surviving.
In the consumer entertainment sector, Smarthouse News speculates on how this might affect the Australian industry. In the local sector, the bulk movers have pretty well put the specialists out of business
The problem now for the low margin brigade is maintaining their turnover. If we are seeing a slowdown in consumer spending then these guys will be caught in a pincer movement of declining margins and declining volumes.
The problem for retailers is the market is largely driven by price. The large chains and big brands have discounted themselves into a corner. The only way to make a profit is to move in bulk.
While this business model is good if you are selling baked beans, technology doesn't quite work that way. It's labour intensive and has much higher overheads than a loaf of bread or carton of milk. This model only survives in the technology retail sectors while customers are in a buying frenzy.
What I suspect's happened in the US industry is the downturn in the housing market has cooled the buying frenzy. In Australia, the housing market hasn't declined to the point that it's affecting consumer buying, but it might soon.
The slim margins have already affected specialist retailers. Hi-Fi shops are closing up and I've previously discussed computer shops closing. The box movers have pretty well won the technology retailing war with only the premium, top end shops surviving.
In the consumer entertainment sector, Smarthouse News speculates on how this might affect the Australian industry. In the local sector, the bulk movers have pretty well put the specialists out of business
The problem now for the low margin brigade is maintaining their turnover. If we are seeing a slowdown in consumer spending then these guys will be caught in a pincer movement of declining margins and declining volumes.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Mac security and myths
The news Mac Internet use has doubled in the US has been greeted with all sorts of comment.
In my view, this is because it's dawning on consumers just how vulnerable Windows users are to malware. Consumers want reliable computing and don't want their banking details going to a Moscow crime ring. Apple Mac offer that security.
But it's interesting to see the myths continue. Adrian Kingsley-Hughes in ZDNet offers the old chestnut that, that Macs have only avoided the malware deluge because they have a smaller market share.
With all due respect to Adrian, that's nonsense. The Mac is more secure simple because the system is better protected from the actions of users and the websites they visit.
The problem is that most Windows users run as administrators, which means they have full control over the operating system. The equivalent on the Mac is a root user. I have no doubt if you ran as the root user for a month on a Mac you'd be hopeless compromised as well.
The fact is Macs and Linux systems are currently more secure and more reliable than Windows machines. With increasing publicity of the risks of compromised computers, consumers and business want equipment that is secure and reliable.
One thing that does concern me about the Apple zealots is another group of myths along the lines that "Apple's don't crash, are bug free and don't lose data."
That's silly. All computers have bugs and crash. Sometime in your computing life you will lose data and it doesn't matter what operating system you use. That's why you need to back up and take basic security and data protection seriously.
Computers are tools to do a job. If the job you want your computer to do involves security then right now a Mac may well be the proper tool for the job.
In my view, this is because it's dawning on consumers just how vulnerable Windows users are to malware. Consumers want reliable computing and don't want their banking details going to a Moscow crime ring. Apple Mac offer that security.
But it's interesting to see the myths continue. Adrian Kingsley-Hughes in ZDNet offers the old chestnut that, that Macs have only avoided the malware deluge because they have a smaller market share.
With all due respect to Adrian, that's nonsense. The Mac is more secure simple because the system is better protected from the actions of users and the websites they visit.
The problem is that most Windows users run as administrators, which means they have full control over the operating system. The equivalent on the Mac is a root user. I have no doubt if you ran as the root user for a month on a Mac you'd be hopeless compromised as well.
The fact is Macs and Linux systems are currently more secure and more reliable than Windows machines. With increasing publicity of the risks of compromised computers, consumers and business want equipment that is secure and reliable.
One thing that does concern me about the Apple zealots is another group of myths along the lines that "Apple's don't crash, are bug free and don't lose data."
That's silly. All computers have bugs and crash. Sometime in your computing life you will lose data and it doesn't matter what operating system you use. That's why you need to back up and take basic security and data protection seriously.
Computers are tools to do a job. If the job you want your computer to do involves security then right now a Mac may well be the proper tool for the job.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
How bad are the Microsoft search tools?
Microsoft just doesn't get how to run search engines
While researching a listener's problem this morning, I went looking for instructions on using the System Restore tool. As I was already in the Microsoft Knowledge Base so I thought I'd search there. Typing in "how to use System Restore" returned over 200 results, with not one of them vaguely useful.
Narrowing the search down to Windows XP only still returned another 200+ with none of the first two pages being any use at all.
Despairing I turned to Google. The first result on the search string "how to use System Restore" returned the very page I was looking for.
I've always found it quicker to use Google or Yahoo! to find information on the Microsoft web site. It seems, despite the developments with Windows Live, Micorsoft still have a long way to go.
While researching a listener's problem this morning, I went looking for instructions on using the System Restore tool. As I was already in the Microsoft Knowledge Base so I thought I'd search there. Typing in "how to use System Restore" returned over 200 results, with not one of them vaguely useful.
Narrowing the search down to Windows XP only still returned another 200+ with none of the first two pages being any use at all.
Despairing I turned to Google. The first result on the search string "how to use System Restore" returned the very page I was looking for.
I've always found it quicker to use Google or Yahoo! to find information on the Microsoft web site. It seems, despite the developments with Windows Live, Micorsoft still have a long way to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)