Posted on

Elon Musk on the Future

Elon Musk from the Code Conference:

The strongest argument for us being in a simulation is the following: 40 years ago, we had Pong. Two rectangles and a dot. Now, 40 years later, we have photorealistic 3D with millions playing simultaneously. If you assume any rate of improvement at all, then the games will become indistinguishable from reality, even if that rate of advancement drops by 1000 from what it is now. It’s a given that we’re clearly on a trajectory that we’re going to have games that are indistinguishable from reality. It would seem to follow that the odds that we’re in base reality is 1 in millions.

This fascinated me. Elon Musk, one of America’s brilliant minds, gives his opinion of the future, which is basically some version of The Matrix, Vanilla Sky, or Surrogates.  If you watch the video you find out this is something that he has thought about so many times, that he has created rules to prevent himself from talking about it too much.  Incredible.

*On another note, this explains Steph Curry’s range.  No one could be that accurate “for reals”.

Posted on

Net Neutrality

The vote over the so called “Net Neutrality” by the FCC is over, but we have yet to see the real impact that will come from this reclassifiction of Internet traffic.There are lots of reasons that Net Neutrality is good.  Any advocate for it can list off many reasons why it is great.

On SaveTheInternet.com they give this are their main point:

Net Neutrality is the Internet’s guiding principle: It preserves our right to communicate freely online. This is the definition of an open Internet.

Net Neutrality means an Internet that enables and protects free speech. It means that Internet service providers should provide us with open networks — and should not block or discriminate against any applications or content that ride over those networks. Just as your phone company shouldn’t decide who you can call and what you say on that call, your ISP shouldn’t be concerned with the content you view or post online.

Without Net Neutrality, cable and phone companies could carve the Internet into fast and slow lanes. An ISP could slow down its competitors’ content or block political opinions it disagreed with. ISPs could charge extra fees to the few content companies that could afford to pay for preferential treatment — relegating everyone else to a slower tier of service. This would destroy the open Internet.

The ACLU also puts in their 2 cents:

The Internet has become so much a part of the lives of most Americans that it is easy to imagine that it will always remain the free and open medium it is now. We’d like to believe it will remain a place where you can always access any lawful content you want, and where the folks delivering that content can’t play favorites because they disagree with the message being delivered or want to charge more money for faster delivery.
But there are no such guarantees.
If the government doesn’t act soon, this open internet — and the “network neutrality” principles that sustain it — could be a thing of the past. Profits and corporate disfavor of controversial viewpoints or competing services could change both what you can see on the Internet and the quality of your connection. And the need to monitor what you do online in order to play favorites means even more consumer privacy invasions piled on top of the NSA’s prying eyes.
Even the White House is jumping on the Band Wagon:
More than any other invention of our time, the Internet has unlocked possibilities we could just barely imagine a generation ago. And here’s a big reason we’ve seen such incredible growth and innovation: Most Internet providers have treated Internet traffic equally. That’s a principle known as “net neutrality” — and it says that an entrepreneur’s fledgling company should have the same chance to succeed as established corporations, and that access to a high school student’s blog shouldn’t be unfairly slowed down to make way for advertisers with more money.
There are not many people who will disagree with these points. However, Net Neutrality is not really what the FCC vote is about.  For one thing, the US government can not set policy for the entire world, although many countries follow where the US leads.  Internet traffic is not strictly a US commodity, although the US is dominant.  The real meaning behind the FCC vote is whether or not the US Government is going to take a more active role in how and where it regulates Internet traffic in the US.
Joshua Steimle from Forbes has this to say regarding the true point of the FCC’s vote:
While I have no problem with net neutrality as a principle or concept, I have serious concerns about Net Neutrality as legislation or public policy.
Mark Cuban, who made his billions as a tech entrepreneur, gives a great interview on CNBC that really should be listened to:
The Courts will rule the Internet…All bits are bits, all bits are equal.

He then expands upon this on The Blaze:

…the Internet isn’t perfect, but slowing down or reversing its progress by giving the government control is not the answer.
As the real impact of this vote starts to become more apparent, I think that more and more people will realize that government regulation does not equal Net Neutrality.  Another wrinkle is that as Presidential administrations change, the regulation will change to match the political views of the current US President.  This is not the Net Neutrality that was presented to the general populace.  The upside of this is that is was a vote by the FCC, what is to stop them from voting again to change the regulations they have now imposed?
Posted on

Apple Watch Edition Pricing

Apple Watch Edition PricingApple has the ability to launch new products without the Tech God.  The critics are wrong.  The Apple Watch will sell way more than any other smart watch.  As an Apple savant I am certain.  The nice thing about being an Apple enthusiast every argument I have had about the success of an Apple product has left me looking further right than the tea party.  That tends to happen when a companies market cap rises to over 700 Billion dollars in 10 years and it’s products are adored all over the world.

There isn’t a month that goes by that I don’t try to bring this up with the doubters.  Now that Apple is launching a new product category I would like to find as many people possible that think the Apple Watch will fail so I can go back in 5 years and serve crow.

Imagine if Apple had a Kickstarter to drum up demand for an Apple Watch.  You would see a millions and millions of dollars coming in to draw interest.  Making my point, the Apple Watch is coming and it will be a hit.  The Apple Watch, the Apple Sport  and the Apple Edition are the three types of watches Apple is releasing.  The Apple Watch Edition is the watch that piques our interest.

Tech Crunch, was representative of early Apple Watch Edition expectations:

“A jewelry contact familiar with the matter told TechCrunch that the gold, 18-karat version of the Apple Watch could cost around $1,200 retail…”

The first report I read back in September ’14 that expectations of $1,200 were extremely low was Daring Fireball.

John Gruber wrote:

“In short: hundreds for Sport, a thousand for stainless steel, thousands for gold.

Most people think I’m joking when I say the gold ones are going to start at $5,000. I couldn’t be more serious. I made a friendly bet last week with a few friends on the starting price for the Edition models, and I bet on $9,999.”

After Gruber’s original analysis people’s are now expecting a luxury watch with the Edition model.  It is now pretty difficult to find an argument out there that the Edition Watch will be less than $3,000.

These are the latest estimates.  Going on record with his prediction, John Gruber writes:

“I now think Edition models will start around $10,000 — and, if my hunch is right about bands and bracelets, the upper range could go to $20,000. I was off by a factor of two…”

Analyst Piper Jaffray, via Apple Insider reports:

“On the high end, the analyst forecasts base model Apple Watch Edition devices to start at $4,999, but classifies segment ASP closer to $7,500 after adding in straps made from precious metals.”

Greg Koenig (@gak_pdx) tweeted:

“If anyone thinks Apple is charging less than $5k for the Edition, they are smoking crack.  Based on the gold content alone, $5k easy.”

Ian Morris contributing for Forbes writes:

“It is quite important that Apple gets the pricing right on the Watch Edition though, because reducing it later would be a really bad move from a perception point-of-view. I suspect that Apple will want to come in under $10,000 but at significantly more than $5,000. So my estimate is $8,000.”

The Koenig group said via Venture Beat:

“Koenig’s group believes the Edition-series Watches will be priced between $3,000 and $7,000, but no more. “Based on the fact that the product lifetime of the Apple Watch will be 1 to 3 years, any ‘reasonable’ buyer (and that is what Apple is looking for) would probably not spend more than this,” Koenig says.

After my findings I find it very hard to believe that Apple will sell a watch for $10,000.  If in fact the cost just to make the Apple Watch Edition is around $1,200.  I can see the starting retail price around $3,000.  Which is more than what I would have originally guessed.  A watch that costs the same as Apple’s 5K Retina iMac doesn’t seem like you are getting value.

I also agree, that I don’t understand the luxury market.  It is a fact that people pay well over $20,000 for watches that are far less functional than the Apple Watch, but also expect the timepiece to last for time.

I can’t believe that, as far as hardware goes, that an Apple Watch in 5 years won’t be significantly better than the one that is 5 years old.   Look at the iPhone.  The shape is remarkably similar, but there are huge differences.  So how can someone see the long term value in what they are buying.

In the world of self-help there is a triangle to make money.  At the first tier you have a book for $20.  Then you have a website with a monthly subscription for $10.  Then you create audio books for $100, then you have a 3 day seminar for $900.  After your seminar then you have a retreat for $1,000’s.  Then you pay for a personal life coach for a higher monthly.  Some see this as a rip off for the higher priced events, the ones who pay for it are glad that it exists.  The reason why those exists aren’t because these self helpers are trying to squeeze every penny out of the “suckers”, but because the consumer wants more.  Where there is demand, you should create supply.

The idea is that whether or not the vast majority of people you reach will pay for each tier is irrelevant, what is relevant is that there are enough people that are willing to.  I believe the demand has existed for a while.  Now Apple has a product that matches that demand.

Apple has the brand and the customers to make this work.  There is no way that people are getting great value on watches that cost over $20,000, but enough people have bought into this notion.  The luxury watch market exists and is thriving.  This is how Apple can sell watches for $10,000.  This is how Apple will sell watches for $10,000.

Posted on

Apple Watch Wins Design Award

Wednesday, March 4, 2015Apple Watch Recognized with the iF DESIGN AWARD 2015

“The iF DESIGN AWARD 2015,Discipline Product – Gold” goes to…Apple Watch Edition!

“The idea of combining classic materials such as leather and metal with state-of-the-art technology to create a very individual fashion accessory has resulted in a delightful product offering a holistic user experience. The Apple Watch scores highly for each design detail and is an altogether extraordinary piece of design. For us, it is already an icon.”

According to “The largest design exhibition on the internet” the Apple Watch is iconic and fashionable.  This can’t be said of most smartwatches. Not sure how accredited iF Design Award is, but the Apple Watch is by far the best designed smart watch.

Posted on

Apple approved ‘Becoming Steve Jobs’ released today

‘Becoming Steve Jobs ‘ was released today and authors Brent Schlender and Rick Tetzeli claim to have written an accurate depiction of the tech icon. The Official Steve Jobs book by Walter Isaacson wasn’t well received in the blogosphere nor by the people that knew Steve Jobs most intimately. Brian X. Chen and Alexander Alter of the New York Times reported ,

“Mr. Isaacson’s best seller did a tremendous disservice; to the Apple chief, Mr. Cook said in the new book, written by Brent Schlender and Rick Tetzeli, and excerpted in the April issue of Fast Company. It didn’t capture the person,” Mr. Cook said. “The person I read about there is somebody I would never have wanted to work with over all this time.”

Jony Ive, Apple’s longtime design chief, added his criticism of Mr. Isaacson’s biography last month in a New Yorker profile. “My regard couldn’t be any lower” for the book, he said, noting that he had read only parts of it.

Eddy Cue, Apple’s chief of software and Internet services, endorsed the new book on Mr. Jobs on Twitter last week: “Best portrayal is about to be released — Becoming Steve Jobs (book). Well done and first to get it right.” Apple’s iBooks account also tweeted last week that “ ‘Becoming Steve Jobs’ is the only book about Steve recommended by the people who knew him best.”

Not only are Apple executives praising the book, but Daring Fireball’s John Gruber who got an advance copy of the Book wrote:

“The book is smart, accurate, informative, insightful, and at times, utterly heartbreaking. Schlender and Tetzeli paint a vivid picture of Jobs the man, and also clearly understand the industry in which he worked. They also got an astonishing amount of cooperation from the people who knew Jobs best: colleagues past and present from Apple and Pixar — particularly Tim Cook — and his widow, Laurene Powell Jobs.”

I have read the Watler Isaacson book and am currently reading ‘Becoming Steve Jobs’. Already it seems to have given more insight into the man and the reason Steve Jobs was successful, not just the controversial. Walter Isaacson’s biography of ‘Steve Jobs’ big failure was that it didn’t capture the reasons why Steve Jobs was so successful.  It focused on his outrageous stories and personality quirks; not his strength.  The podcast Hypercritical Espisode #42, by John Siracusa does a good job explaining why that first book was such a disappointment. There are a lot of smart people that seem to think that this book got it right. I hope so and look forward to finishing it.  Look forward to my review.