What the iPad can do…

At last Apple announced its much anticipated tablet computer, the iPad… And let me start this post by saying I think it’s quite a disappointment… It is for the most part a large size iPhone. Nothing revolutionary…

But it is still a nice device at a decent price and it carries the Apple logo. I wouldn’t bet against how well it will sell and lead to more choices of tablet computers in the market.

However, let’s not focus on its limitations. What’s significant about the iPad is that it will be the beginning of a big change in how we consume the various formats of media. (Actually Amazon’s Kindle has already started the process by getting more and more people to read books on an e-reader.) Think about how much space in our homes that we have devoted to shelving and storing books, CD’s, video types or DVD cases right now. That’s about to change. And think about all the tress that can be saved when newspapers and magazines no longer exist.

Even more interesting to me is that I think there will be a convergence of the different media formats. I think what this will do is, instead of saving the print media, actually killing them. I don’t mean the companies that produce printed content today will all die. But rather… it means they will be forced to produce the same content but in a mix of formats and deliver it in a different manner.

Think about it… On the iPad when you read the New York Times via their iPad app, you will read articles (text) but you will also see video content as well. Not to mention all the “social” features that can be built into such an app. Sooner or later, the New York Times won’t be your good ol’ print media company. No one will be.

A device like the iPad allows us to demand media content to be interactive, social and mobile. It will not be like what it used to be!

I’m excited about it. I already read news on the Internet and don’t watch TV much. I think the media industry will continue to be re-shaped by the emergence of new technologies. It means a lot of opportunities will come of this evolution!

We should stop expecting things to be free

The New York Times announced yesterday that it would start a “metered” system that would charge readers of its NYTimes.com website a fee to read articles after a set number of articles have been read. You can read the press release here. Given the state of the newspaper industry and the status of the New York Times being one of the more respected newspapers in the US, this has generated a lot of buzz online. You can read about some of the reader feedback here.

As someone who reads stuff on NYTimes.com everyday for the last 12 years or so, this obviously affects me directly as I would like to continue reading this fine newspaper. My response to their decision to charge for content that is currently free is this:

I will gladly pay for a subscription, provided that 1) it is at a reasonable price and 2) it means less advertising on the site.

I want to emphasize the “gladly” part of my previous statement — yes, I’d gladly pay money to continue reading the Times online. To be perfectly honest, I don’t agree with people who think it needs to remain free. The New York Times is obviously a business and is out to make money. If the advertising revenues can’t support its operation completely, it’s gotta do what it’s gotta do. But why should anyone jump up and down and scream, “No this is evil. It needs to stay free!”

Take something else people often get for free — music. I know when I wanna get a song, I go to Baidu MP3 and find the song online to download for free. Quite frankly, I would be willing to pay for that, too, even though in reality I don’t right now. Here’s the problem… The music industry can’t make enough money from CD sales but that doesn’t mean that music is not something people will pay to enjoy. It simply means the business model should change and they need to provide either different products or a different experience/method for us to consume its products.

When something is reasonably priced and provides you the value you expect it to deliver, people ought to pay. And in fact that’s what we do with most of the things we want or need. Just think of the lunch you had today. You paid, didn’t you?

So why is there a sense of entitlement with this particular case?

I guess for one thing people have been spoiled. In the case of the NYTimes.com, it is free right now so of course some people have a hard time changing their mindset. And it’s not just online news. A lot of content/tools/services we get today online is free. Google certainly doesn’t charge us to search. Heck, Gmail (or Yahoo! Mail or Hotmail, etc etc) is free, too. There is indeed a culture of us enjoying all these great things at no direct cost to us. However, people need to start understanding more the business aspect of the things that we get for free today.

More importantly for the NYTimes.com, though, is that they need to make sure after they start charging, their loyal readers, such as me, feel it’s worthwhile. If they can do that, then it’s only reasonable we accept the costs.

Google vs. China and my thoughts on this matter…

I’m closely following the Google vs. China drama as it’s unfolding in front of our eyes. I’m still trying to digest what all of this will mean to me going forward. Here are a few things I’d like to say about this matter so far:

————————————

People are too quick to judge…

Many factors probably drove Google to make the decision to stop uncensoring their Google.cn website even if it means closing down their Chinese operation. It’s a fair question to ask if Google would as easily make this choice if they were a clear no. 1 in the China market in search. I guess we’ll never know.

And from a business stand point, is this a bad decision to leave a huge market that’s full of opportunities and potential? I’d think so! Even if Google itself called its China revenue “immaterial,” I’d say a lot of companies come to China not for how much it can earn now but for what future growth China can bring. Google executives have no choice to play it down to avoid a huge drop in Google’s share price and to avoid potential shareholder lawsuits. But for sure Google is giving up a lot by leaving.

Anyway, what I know is this… There haven’t been enough facts out in the open. Most of us are on the outside and few people have all the details regarding the hacker attack and what Google has had to deal with in the last 4 years operating in China. That’s why I find it irritating that some people are quick to attack Google’s position that it decided to pull out of China in large part because it didn’t want to censor its search results anymore.

Stop talking like you know what’s going on. You don’t. And let’s wait a little bit before you make up your mind about this one way or another.

Everyone is a loser in this…

Clearly China’s reputation is taking a hit around the world. China’s censorship isn’t new but Google forced the issue into the spotlight. If it can, the Chinese government should hire a large PR firm to generate some good will fast.

And for Google, even with all the people it’s winning over, it is giving up a huge market with huge upside, as I’ve mentioned. It has to be considered a loser, too.

As for Baidu… well, it is probably enjoying the fact that its sales people can start calling Google customers and successfully ask them to switch to Baidu’s ad platform. But overall, a lack of competition is not good for anyone. Baidu may find itself lacking motivation to innovate and actually lose more relevance in the market. After all, this is a company known for its tainted search results.

The biggest losers of all this though are the Chinese Internet users – especially those without the resources or know-how to “climb over” the Great Firewall. They will probably lose not only Google.cn but also Google.com; not to mention all the other Google products and services, like Gmail.

I’m really concerned about the general direction Internet in China is heading…

People have started joking about that Internet in China is fast becoming a national Intranet… It’s becoming harder for people to run Internet-based businesses and the government is placing more limits on what content is allowed. There seems to be all kinds of licenses one would need to get just to get a web site/product/service up online. It’s all very frustrating.

Google said it would have to re-evaluate the feasibility of its China operation. I have to wonder about the same for my own Internet ventures…

————————————

I wonder what will eventually happen. Will either side actually backdown? Will some kind of compromise be reached and both sides can keep face? If not, how fast will Google pull out and how fast will we lose access to all things Google in China?

I guess I will continue to monitor closely.

Hello world!

Hi everyone…

Thanks for stopping by. This is my new blog. I’d like a new place where I can comment on the more serious things in life and keep these entries away from my personal stuff. So here you go, The Hsieh Report. Hope you enjoy my writings.

Cheers,
Allen