Can Pay What You Want Work For Tangible Goods? Perhaps With Kickstarter...

from the neat-to-see dept

While we're not huge fans of pure "pay what you want" business models, which often feel more like give it away and pray models rather than complete business model concepts, I do think it can be part of a larger business model when done creatively. Of course, for the most part, I had considered pay what you want not to make much sense outside of the realm of digital goods. While some restaurants have found that it can work to do a pay what you want model, it seems a lot riskier, since the marginal cost is pretty high, and you can easily lose out. That's different in the case of a digital work, where the marginal cost is zero. So, for the most part, I haven't thought too much of doing "pay what you want" for tangible goods.

However, perhaps it can work, if it's done in combination with a minimum funding goal, using the Kickstarter type model (where people pledge, but no one has to pay until a certain total is reached). Some designers who wanted to create a better stylus for the iPad are running just such an experiment on Kickstarter. They've designed a prototype and need about $50,000 to manufacture the first batch, but they're setting up a "pay what you want" system... while making it clear that they'll only produce the product if they can make that entire $50,000... and they only have 3,000 slots open. You can pay as little as a dollar, and you'll still get the stylus (which they plan to sell for $25 eventually)... but only if the other 2,999 buyers pony up enough to get them to $50,000.

Now, I can already hear the complaints, where some will point out that the "suckers" who "overpay" are subsidizing the "freeloaders" who only pay $1. And, if you're not up on basic economics, perhaps that makes sense. But the fact is that everyone in the group is paying what they feel is appropriate to get this product to market in the first place. That some may end up subsidizing others is really meaningless, if they feel what they're paying is worthwhile. As for the other argument that the freeloaders will take over, and thus the product won't get to market at all... well, that's what we're going to see, which is what makes this an interesting experiment.

I think part of the problem is that too many people are concerned about the relative issues, in terms of how much others are paying. But, that's mostly meaningless from an economics standpoint. The real question is what is it worth for you to pay to help get this product to market, and plenty of people are perfectly happy to pay a larger amount, knowing that it (a) helps these developers, (b) will make sure the product exists at all and (c) also gets them one of these styli faster than anyone else. And, to them, that's worth it... even if some others get it cheaper.

Filed Under: ipad, kickstarter, pay what you want, stylus

Judge Says The iPhone Didn't Violate Nokia's Patents

from the regret-pushing-the-button dept

Nokia, who used to absolutely dominate the mobile phone market, has definitely seen better days. The iPhone really took it by surprise and the company really hasn't done a particularly good job reacting to the rise of the smartphone market. So, like plenty of companies who once innovated, once it started losing in the market, it shifted to litigation. Just a week after the company's first ever quarterly loss, it sued Apple for patent infringement over the iPhone. It actually took two cracks at Apple in that it also used the ITC loophole to go after the company twice.

Of course, in true patentland fashion, when a big tech company sues another big tech company for patent infringement, patent nuclear war ensues, as Apple sued back claiming that Nokia infringed on its patents. While the various lawsuits are still ongoing, it appears that Nokia's first shot via the ITC loophole has been a big failure, as the judge has ruled that Apple didn't infringe at all. It's worth noting that many consider the ITC to also have a lower bar, so this might not bode well for Nokia's lawsuit. Of course, Apple's lawsuit against Nokia remains as well... meaning that this little attack on Apple could conceivably end very, very badly for Nokia.

Probably should have focused on innovating, huh?

Filed Under: competition, innovation, itc, patents, smartphones
Companies: apple, nokia

Totally Pointless Lawsuit Accusing Mobile Carriers Of Being P2P File Sharers Dismissed; Plaintiffs Say They're Happy

from the um,-guys,-you-lost-big-time dept

Last summer, we wrote about an incredibly poorly thought out lawsuit, by a company named Luvdarts, developers of MMS content, suing the mobile operators, because MMS can be forwarded from a recipient to another person. The company claimed that the big mobile operators were no different than file sharing networks, like Limewire or Gnutella, because each forwarding of content was infringement. As we pointed out at the time, this made no sense. It was a silly argument that was really being put forth by a guy named Max Davis, who has an equally silly plan to add compulsory licensing to MMS content, and this lawsuit was an incredibly weak attempt to push the mobile operators into negotiating. Instead, as we predicted, it's been dismissed by the courts for failure to state a claim. The dismissal was with prejudice, meaning that the court doesn't want to see them again on this. The press release linked above is kind of amusing, because it has the folks behind the lawsuit claiming that they're happy about this result and planning to appeal. Guys, you just got laughed out of court, because this lawsuit makes no sense. Appealing isn't going to fix that.

Filed Under: file sharing, mms, royalties
Companies: at&t, luvdarts, sprint, t-mobile, verizon

Phone Calls Are So Last Century

from the keep-up-with-the-times dept

A month or so ago, a friend of mine asked if I could do a favor (helping point someone in the right direction for a job) for someone -- a relative of a friend of my friend, so this was pretty distant. There was an email introduction, and a request to talk by phone so I could learn a bit more about this person in order to actually help. I noted that I was busy over the next few days, but had some open time on a Thursday morning or Friday afternoon, expecting, as usually seems to happen in these cases, that they'd come back with some specific times. Instead, the person emailed "great, give me your phone number and I'll call when available." I found myself immediately uninterested. Something in the back of my brain said "if this person doesn't respect my time enough to actually set a specific time, but would prefer to just interrupt me at random, then I'm going to pass on helping here." I don't know if that's a rude response -- perhaps it is -- but it's what I felt. And it was at that point that I realized how rare it is that I'll accept or make unexpected or unplanned phone calls, with the exception of my wife and my parents (and potentially some work-related "emergency.") There are a few very close, long-term friends that I'll call every so often, but I really haven't done that in a while, and I feel a bit awkward about doing it these days. I still talk on the phone for meetings, but always at set times.

Apparently, I'm not the only person who feels this way. Many people are realizing that random phone calls are just not considered polite any more. They're somewhat interruptive and can be annoying. What strikes me as really interesting is that this isn't a case of just the "younger generation" feeling this way -- but it's actually true of many older people as well.

I find this interesting for any number of reasons, including how counterintuitive it may actually be. These days, people have phones with them at all times. In the past, when most people didn't have mobile phones, such random calls were more common. And you might assume that our greater access to telephony would mean greater desire to make calls. Now, obviously, a big part of the reason for making calls has been replaced by (mostly text-based) alternative means, such as email, text messaging and social networks. But, I'd argue that the greater access also makes us more wary in general. For example, I was thinking about calling a friend recently, who I hadn't spoken to in a while, but realized it would be his mobile phone, and what if he was out with his wife and kids, and I didn't want to interrupt that.

It's kind of an interesting phenomenon, which makes me wonder if the idea of personal voice calls was really just a temporary slice of time that is going entirely out of style. Perhaps there will be some sort of quaint revival, like the idea that people have of writing paper letters to each other these days as being more "personal," but the whole phenomenon of the random personal phone call is pretty much becoming a thing of the past.

Filed Under: calls, phones, talking

Microsoft Continues Its Backdoor Legal Fight Against Android: Sues Barnes & Noble Over Nook

from the fight-fight-fight dept

Microsoft has been tiptoeing around its claims that Android violates certain Microsoft patents, carefully choosing who to sue. For example, it's sued Motorola, but hasn't sued Google. The latest is that it's suing Barnes & Noble for infringing on its patents, claiming that the Nook ebook reader, which uses Android, violates its patents. The patents in question all seem to cover astoundingly obvious concepts that Microsoft should be ashamed to hold patents on and be asserting:

• System provided child window controls: 5,889,522
• Remote retrieval and display management of electronic document with incorporated images: 5,778,372
• Loading status in a hypermedia browser having a limited available display area: 6,339,780
• Selection handles in editing electronic documents: 6,891,551
• Method and apparatus for capturing and rendering annotations for non-modifiable electronic content: 6,957,233

It's always sad when companies focus more on litigating rather than innovating. I mean, seriously, does anyone think that, without patents, people wouldn't have made these kinds of advancements? These aren't advancements that requires a patent at all. These are the kinds of advancements that happen naturally in the marketplace due to competition and multiple companies competing to offer a better product to customers.

Of course, it's nice to see the response on Microsoft's own blog involves comments trashing Microsoft for this decision. Scrolling down the comments, almost all of them are incredibly negative against Microsoft, pointing out that these patents are obvious, that Microsoft should be ashamed of itself for suing, and people swearing off Microsoft products for being a patent bully. Perhaps Microsoft might want to think its patent litigation strategy in recognizing that it's not particularly well received by consumers.

The comments really are great, but my favorite may be: "None of this BS will get anyone to buy a Windows phone anyway." And that's kind of the point. Microsoft should focus on innovating. Not bitching about what competitors are doing better than it did.

Filed Under: android, competition, nook, operating system, patents, ridiculous
Companies: barnes & noble, microsoft

Dutch Court Says Breaking Into An Encrypted WiFi Router To Use The Connection Is Legal

from the that-seems-to-be-a-bit-far dept

Slashdot points us to the news of a somewhat surprising ruling out of the Netherlands. Apparently, a Dutch court has ruled that hacking into an encrypted WiFi router to use the connection is legal. I'll have to remember that next time I'm searching for WiFi in the Netherlands. Along those lines, it also said that just hopping on open WiFi networks cannot be prosecuted. That latter point I certainly agree with. If you leave a router open, it should be perfectly legal to use it. As for why hacking into an encrypted router was deemed legal, it's basically because the law defines a computer as a machine that handles the storage, processing and transmission of data. And, with most routers, there's no storage. So it's not a computer. If the guy had hacked into someone's computer, it would have been a different story. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised to see the government now modify the law to cover routers and other devices as well.

Filed Under: hacking, netherlands, open wifi, wifi

Yet Another Company Claims Patents Over WiFi, Begins Suing

from the patent-thicket dept

The patent thicket around basic WiFi technology continues to grow. Over the years, we've pointed to a wide variety of companies that were claiming to hold patents that were infringed by every implementation of WiFi. In other words, WiFi's got a huge patent thicket issue to deal with. The latest is that Canadian patent hoarder Mosaid Technologies has claimed that its patents are violated, and has sued bunch of companies, including Dell, RIM and AsusTek. Kinda funny that it seems like every one of the companies suing over WiFi patents doesn't actually make anything themselves...

Filed Under: patents, wifi
Companies: asustek, dell, mosaid, rim

It May Take Up To 10,000 Years Before We Finally Get Rid Of 'Up To' Language In Broadband Marketing

from the up-to-something... dept

It's been nearly a decade since we first started calling out various broadband providers for hyping up their connections speeds using "up to" language, where they say you may get speeds "up to" X Mbps. Up to is the ultimate weasel phrase, because you never have to get anywhere near it, and can actually be well under it, and still be "accurate." Every so often federal regulators jump into the debate -- warning companies about this practice. At least a few broadband providers (especially in the US) have started to move away from using "up to" marketing. But it still is rare to see regulators actually go after anyone for making such misleading claims. Broadband Reports points out that UK telco regulator Ofcom seems to come out with a report every single year at this time promising that it's about to crack down on "up to" marketing, but never actually doing so. At some point, companies realize that the threats about "up to" language are about as accurate as the "up to" claims themselves.

Filed Under: broadband, pricing, speeds, up to, wireless

T-Mobile Finally Kills Off The Sidekick

from the say-a-little-prayer dept

The first ever smartphone that got me excited about what smartphones could do was the T-Mobile Sidekick, made by the company Danger, which was amazingly hyped up for a time in Silicon Valley. It remains the only phone that I ever bought the day that it came out (even though I didn't really use it as a phone, but as a portable email/internet device). Danger made some big mistakes early on, such as taking a pretty big investment from T-Mobile, which meant that no other carriers had any interest in carrying the phone (why help a competitor?) in the US. That really hurt the company's ability to grow. The company also had a really dreadful developer strategy -- initially launching without an SDK for outside developers, and then remaining an extremely closed system that pissed off many developers, and simply made many developers ignore the platform.

In 2007, after the Sidekick had long fallen off the map, and after the initial iPhone had already hit the market, Danger announced plans to IPO, but with financials that were anything but appealing. Microsoft stepped in and bought the company instead, probably more for the (remaining) talent than anything else. A year later, there was a massive server failure, that caused a bunch of people to lose data. It became clear that the platform was really on its last legs.

And, now, finally, T-Mobile is putting it out of its misery and will be shutting off service to its Sidekick servers. If you don't remember (or never knew), the way the Sidekick worked was everything had to go through special Sidekick/Danger servers hosted by your ISP (in some ways similar to the way Blackberries work). So, without those servers, the few remaining Sidekicks become even more useless. Somewhere, buried in a box, I'm pretty sure I still have my original (black and white!) Sidekick. I might just have to put it on my desk as a reminder of how quickly technology changes.

Filed Under: hiptop, sidekick, smartphones
Companies: danger, microsoft, t-mobile

Guy Uses GPS Data On Mobile Phone To Get Out Of A Speeding Ticket

from the now-that's-how-it's-done dept

We've heard a few stories here and there of people trying to use GPS data to get out of speeding tickets, and apparently in some cases it's working. A guy who was running some tracking software on his Android smartphone realized well after he received a speeding ticket that the phone had actually been tracking his speed and showed he was not, in fact, violating the speed limit. When it came time to protest the ticket, the judge was a bit skeptical, but the guy had a lot of info backing him up:

I then presented my time stamped GPS data with details about my average moving speed and maximum speed during my short drive home. Both numbers were well within the posted speed limits.

I also made it clear to the judge that I had no other prior driving records or violations. After a lengthy pause, the judge asked how I obtained the GPS tracking information. I provided a detailed explanation about my new awesome smart phone, the application in use, and how I exported the data. After questioning whether the data was reliable, I mentioned the in progress Sonoma County Superior Court trial regarding the same matter about the credibility of both technologies.

The judge found him not guilty but was careful not to include his GPS phone information in the judgement.

Perhaps it's time to start tracking my driving habits on my phone...

Filed Under: gps, smartphone, speeding ticket