In what has to be the oddest story (to date) about the forthcoming Microsoft Zune is that Microsoft has agreed to play Universal Music Group (the music publishers) $1 per Zune sold. This is regardless of whether anyone ever adds a single Universal-published song to the Zune, ever.
I simply don’t understand why Microsoft would agree to this, except out of extreme desperation. Imagine if they were unable to go live on November 14 as planned because no-one buying a Zune could download and play music from anysignificantartists on the device. In such a situation, Universal might recognize their position and put Microsoft over a barrel, and insist on receiving this per-device payment.
Microsoft, of course, claims that this was a deal to benefit the artists, as the payment is to shared with the Universal artists, and that they plan on cutting more such deals with other publishers. Some have speculated that Microsoft is trying to screw Apple; imagine if Apple were forced to pay $1 per iPod to Universal (and Sony, and Warner Music and…). Last Christmas season, Apple sold some 14 million iPods. Think the music publishers would like a piece of that pie?
This year, Apple has the $79 iPod shuffle; imagine paying $3-$5 of each iPod shuffle. Think that’ll cut into Apple’s profit just a tad? Thus, the “Microsoft screwing Apple” meme. But Daring Fireball’s John Gruber differs on this. He suggests that
What we’ve got here is a nice, warm, shit sandwich from Universal Music, and Microsoft concluded that they had no choice but to eat it…. this is Universal’s idea, not Microsoft’s.
The music publishers certainly would like the free money. I just don’t imagine Apple to be in the same position as Microsoft here. People have come to expect the latest songs from top artists on iTunes, and if suddenly a whole set of artists were to disappear overnight, people aren’t going to blame Apple, they’re going to blame the artists, and, eventually, the publishers. After all, Apple is able to claim that they’re selling millions of dollars of music through their store, and are a Top 5 reseller of music, behind Amazon, Target, Best Buy and Wal-Mart. Think one of those other retailers would enter into a deal like this?
Microsoft is simply getting a taste of its own medicine: you want to work with us, you’ll take the deal.
The city of Campbell has a weekly farmers’ market. Every couple of months, Y and I stroll through the 4-block-long market, sampling the foods and enjoying the weather. And, every couple of months, I find myself drawn in by the allure of the fresh food and pay lots of money for stuff I could get cheaper at the local Safeway, freshness be damned. This time, I bought the following items:
A $6 block of cheese
A $6 bag of nuts
A $10 bunch of flowers
A $1 bag of apples
OK, so the apples weren’t priced too badly. And the cheese is a tasty jack, the nuts is a spicy almonds, the flowers adorn my dining table. And yet, I somehow feel that I shouldn’t have cheese, nuts, flowers or apples, at least, not at these prices.
Y tells me the flowers were priced well too. And I suppose I’ve paid more for cheese in the past. The nuts… I don’t know about the nuts. Very tasty, but $6 tasty? I’ll have to let that one sit for a while.
At the end of the day, though, I have fruit in the house, my dining table looks attractive, tasty snacks are available, and I have lots of wine to drink with the cheese.
If you’ve never had the insane pleasure of watching Animaniacs, please, rent it from NetFlix, buy the CD, borrow it from the library, anything. This goes equally for the companion Pinky and The Brain.
You’ll need to know 90s pop culture and early musicals, and have an acute appreciation of bad puns and sight gags to fully appreciate it, but even if none of that is true, you’re still sure to get a kick of it.
I’ve started watching Psych, the new “fake psychic/real detective” show on USA. It stars one of my favorite actors, Dulé Hill, from The West Wing. He’s not the main character, he’s the sidekick, but he’s funny as hell.
The show is highly entertaining, often absurd, and extremely silly. And I love it. I find myself laughing out loud way too often, usually at the craziest stuff. It has some geek cred (Dulé’s character is a huge comic book and sci-fi fan, e.g.), and a lot of the humor comes from clash between the geek of Dulé and the smooth coolness of James Roday, the lead.
It’s smartly written and the relationship between the two main characters is filled with true chemistry. You can get a sense of this chemistry in what they’re calling “Psych-Outs” or sudden outbursts by James and Dulé in the middle of a scene. They’ll sing (e.g. “Man in the Mirror”) or dance or just hilarious improv’d out-takes. You will laugh louder than you think you should at some of them.
USA has a great thing going with their “characters”. I hope Psych is on the air for a long time. (Of course, how can a “fake psychic” keep fooling everyone… so we’ll see.)
He’s right, of course. It would be great if Mac OS X allowed you to easily switch to a minimized window along with the other windows. I decided to file an enhancement request with Apple asking for this functionality.
I started thinking about how I use the various task and window switching functionality, and came to two conclusions:
I think of minimized windows as “open but inactive”; and
I hide my applications (and their windows) when I’m not using them
“Open but inactive” means they’re windows that have useful information in them but that I don’t want in my way. For example, each morning I fire up Camino, hit MacSurfer.com, and command-click through a series of articles I want to read (opening each in a separate tab). After reading a couple of entries, I’ll minimize the window to the Dock so it’s gone but not forgotten as I use Camino for Actual Work Purposes. When I cycle through my “active Camino windows”, this minimized window never shows up, exactly as I want. When I want to read it again, I un-minimize it, use it, and then return it to the Dock. I’ll often have several of these types of windows in the Dock.
So, I keep all my windows un-minimized except for those I don’t want to see but might need.
The second conclusion was I hide my applications if I don’t need them immediately. I use Command-Option-H (Hide Others) all the time. This takes every application, and all of those application’s windows, and hides them, leaving me with just the application I’m using and its windows.
(As an aside: I’ll often hide applications which don’t offer easy recall of their contents, like Camino and Safari with their tabs. If I can quit the application and my state is restored upon opening (e.g. NetNewsWire, Mail), I’ll generally do that instead of hiding it. The effect is the same, except on memory usage.)
In short, I leave my windows open because I don’t have a need to minimize them. When I decide to minimize them, it’s because I want to get it out the way (e.g. not in my Command-Tilde window cycling). For me, it’s actually a feature, not a bug.
Update: The application of choice for this seems to be Witch, by Peter Maurer (of Butler and TextExpander (nee Textpander) fame).
An aside to the Washington Mutual issue with silly security questions. Turns out this was something they first announced in December 2005 in a press release. The release is full of your typical flowery prose that says a lot of nothing:
Washington Mutual […] will be adding a risk-based multi-factor authentication solution to provide enhanced security for its online banking users….
It works like this, they say:
Washington Mutual’s enhanced security will analyze every online login and transaction behind the scenes and score the potential risk based on a broad range of criteria, including the user’s IP address, geographic location, prior transaction behaviors and much more. When a potential risky situation is detected, it can invoke additional authentication methods in real-time.
Those “additional authentication methods” are the three-part questions I first discussed a couple of days ago. The solution they selected offers “minimal impact” they say.
Another press release from just a few weeks ago also caught my eye:
Washington Mutual was recently ranked No. 1 for bank Web sites by Change Sciences Group, an online customer experience research and consulting company. The study evaluates more than 40 leading bank sites based on what people experience as they find a checking account that meets their needs and then apply for it online.
Good thing the study didn’t investigate how people go about using the website after the account is opened, because it’s certainly not all wine and roses.
I’ll be putting up all the questions they ask you in the near future. Stay tuned….
A couple of days ago I wrote about Washington Mutual’s new security “challenge questions”. So put off was I by the fact that I couldn’t choose just about any of their questions for my profile, and that without selecting a set of questions, I couldn’t access my account, I called them up.
The first call was to WaMu Customer Care at (800) 788-7000, featured prominently on the “introduction” page for this new “feature”. I spoke with Cindy, Arillia and Shannon during an extended hour-long series of hold-and-transfers. Most everyone was polite as I explained how I’m unable to select any of the specific questions since most of them didn’t pertain to my situation and of the remaining ones, I didn’t have any answers to give.
For the most part, they were all understanding. They indicated, repeatedly, that this new “feature” was meant to make our account more secure (whatever), and acknowledged that others have also called to complain. One suggested I create “fake” answers. One finally indicated that there’d be no way for me to bypass this functionality. Another suggested that I write to customer service to complain. Not via email, no… via postal mail:
Washington Mutual Customer Service
PO Box 465
Northridge, CA 91328
One even volunteered the name of the CEO (Kerry Killinger). Talk about not wanting to deal!
Not satisfied with this, I decided to investigate other options. My first instinct, of course, was blogging about it, and I figured I’d mention it to various press sources (still my plan). I decided to try finding some kind of “president’s line” that takes high-level customer service problem calls (every major company has one). Although I’m not sure how I found it (I think I tried the Media Hotline 800.228.9268 or the Corporate Switchboard 206.461.2000), I did find a number for the Executive Response Team and a woman named Anishka who was extremely sympathetic to my plight.
She indicated that she believed Technical Support could “opt me out” of having to answer these questions, and promised she’d call me back after speaking with them. Being the untrusting soul I am, I requested a direct number for me to call her back ((800) 225-5497).
Lo and behold, about 30 minutes later, I received a call from her. Alas, it was bad news: Technical Support could not, in fact, opt me out. I’d have to answer the questions “as best [I] can”.
She also gave me the direct number for Technical Support (360) 482-1095 so I could contact them directly and learn more about this functionality. I plan on doing that.
(I should note that she promised someone else would call me Wednesday, but that has yet to happen. I will be following up. Stay tuned.)
The situation is not as dire as I first feared, fortunately. So far, at least, if I try to log in, and I’m presented with the question selection, if I return to the main page and try logging in again, I don’t get the question page. Now, this might be coincidence, and they’re only making the page available to a random selection of people logging in, but I was able to get into my account online today.
I don’t know how long that will last. You can bet this is not the last of the Washington Mutual Security Through Stupidity entries….
Everyone’s trying to improve the security of their websites these days. Several banks have started using on-line images you select, along with a normal username/password combination, to determine if to let you in.
Washington Mutual seems to be taking a different tack: instead of trying to prevent would-be hackers from getting into your account, they’re looking to protect you when they
… detect a risky request involving your accounts
In other words, after someone has already gained access. Well, OK, I’ve received numerous calls from my Visa issuer when they think a charge may be fraudulent. Usually they ask if I still have the card in my possession, if made a particular charge, and to confirm some details of my account.
WaMu has decided they
… may ask you one or more “challenge questions” to verify your identity. Ideally, only you should be
able to answer these questions correctly.
Not terribly out of the ordinary… until you take a look at the questions.
(Let’s take a brief time-out here and set up a hypothetical WaMu user. Let’s say that you’re a 30-year-old single guy, never married, no children and are an only child. Your grandparents died when you were five or six, and you’ve never had the opportunity to travel outside of the U.S. OK? OK.)
You are presented with three popups; you are asked to choose one question from each popup, and provide the appropriate answer. You must provide answers for all three popups. Go:
Hm. Let’s take a closer look, shall we? I’ll be you:
When is your oldest sibling’s birthday (MM/DD)?
Wait… I’m an only child…
What is your youngest child’s middle name?
…I don’t have children…
What is the first name of your youngest child?
…I still don’t have children…
What is the middle name of your youngest sibling?
…And I’m still an only child…
What was the family name of your nearest neighbor in 2000?
…Nearest neighbor… in 2000… Uh… Where was I living in 2000?
In which year did you meet your spouse (YYYY)?
…I’m not married…
What is your mother’s middle name?
…Oh! I can answer this one! Um, Mom, what’s your middle name? Oh, you don’t have one? Like millions of other people? I see…
Who is your favorite person from history?
…Today? Or in a year, when I’m asked this question?
And that’s just the first popup. Out of eight questions, two are about a non-existant sibling, two are about a non-existant child and one is about a non-existant spouse. Five of eight questions, tossed out the window because of invalid assumptions. The remaining three questions ask either trivial questions (my favorite person from history? What is this, a pajama party?) or continue to make assumptions (not everyone has a middle name, you know).
WaMu offers multiple sets of questions (which set you get appears to rotate for each login attempt);. So far, I’ve seen 58 questions. Of those 58 questions,
22 of them are 100% inapplicable to me: siblings (5), children (7) and marriage (10)
14 require me to remember trivial historical details (my high school mascot? My high school had a mascot?)
16 more questions ask me about my parents (7) and grandparents (9). I might be able to tell you my “parents’ wedding anniversary” if I had a moment to look it up, but my “grandfather’s profession”? Seriously?
4 ask me my opinion on something (which sports team did I like most as a child? Hm… any chance that might have changed a few dozen times?).
That leaves all of two questions that I can answer without any thought:
What is my nickname?
In which city was I born?
Even the nickname question is silly since I might have one nickname today and a different nickname in a year when my account is being illegally drained and WaMu decides to “challenge” me when it notices the “risky requests”.
This is all an amusing tale of stupid security questions, except for one minor problem.
Until I complete these questions, I can’t log into my account.
Yes, you read that correctly. Unless and until I select three questions from whatever subset I happen to get, I’m unable to use the online banking service.
This got me in such a tizzy that I actually called up Washington Mutual to complain about it. More on that phone call later this week.
For the second time since moving to the Bay Area, I found myself following the 17-Mile Drive, and for the second time since moving to the Bay Area, I found myself wondering why I was following the 17-Mile Drive.
In an exclusive gated community of multi-million dollar homes and a word-famous gold course, I pondered why I was paying $8.75 to drive around and see pretty views I could see for free elsewhere. It’s not that it wasn’t an interesting drive, it just didn’t hold anything of particular beauty, beyond the natural views. Sure, it was great to drive past homes I could never afford, and marvel at a field of a sport I’d never play, but other than saying “I drove 17-Mile Drive”, I didn’t quite get the attraction.
(I sort of had a similar sense when we drove the Hana Highway in Maui. The difference, I think, is Hana Highway had exits and turn-offs we missed; 17-Mile Drive had many turn-offs, most of which we took, and still did not manage to provide much thrills.)
I’ll guess I won’t be mentioning 17-Mile Drive to others, although there is the idea that people want others to recognize the lameness for themselves….
All-in-all, while there are some famous spots and interesting views, I wouldn’t put it on my list of Must-See Attractions when visiting the area.
OK, so I haven’t written much on this blog since it started, but I figured I’d toss an entry on the barbie on this Fourth of July.
See, turns out a buddy of mine recently “switched” to a Mac. Not by choice, it seems: it’s not that he’s heard all these great things about using a Mac, and decided to jump in. Rather, his job requires that he rotate among the three major OSes (Mac OS X, Linux, Windows), and he recently started using a MacBook Pro. He has several “first impressions” which he writes about in his blog.
Much of what he complains about is typical fodder for switchers: behavior of keys, expectations of windows functionality, etc. Nothing he says is inherently bad, it’s simply learned (or preferred) behavior. In effect, he’s fighting a decade-plus of muscle memory: it’s the same thing I’d go through if I suddenly found myself forced to use a Windows OS after my 15 years of Macintosh experience.
There’s a brief (hah!) point-by-point response to his concerns after the jump.