Global Nerdy

No idea whether this will help you get a deal on an iPhone, but in the wake of Consumerist’s article with 8 tips from an ex-Verizon sales rep on getting the best deal on a phone from his former employer, an ex-Cingular rep has stepped up and provided this list:

1. Avoid contract extensions by changing your rate plan at a store. “If you want to change your rate plan, do it in a retail store instead of on-line or over the phone.”
2. Features are your friends. “You can just about get about get a rep to do anything you want if you offer to get a text package or a data package, and they can be cancelled on-line or over the phone the second you leave the store.”
3. Upgrade more often with a higher priced rate plan. “[Cingular’s] upgrade policies are similar to Verizon’s, if someone’s rate plan has been 75 dollars or higher (including features, but excluding taxes) for the last three months, they can upgrade 1/2 way through their contract.”
4. Get the rebate in the store, and at home. “Try to get the rep to give you the rebate in the store, they’ll be likely to do this if you agree to get accessories. You can get go online and print out the rebate form from www.cingular.com and send it in anyway.”
5. Make the store compete with the website. “Remember that the retail stores can match prices for the cingular website, so check those prices before you go into a store.”
6. Get credit for your mistakes. “If you go way over on your text messaging one month, go into a store and ask if they can credit you the difference if you sign up for a bigger text package. They should be able to do this, and you can always drop your text back down after you’ve gotten your credit.”
7. Use the internet for $20. “Also, regardless of what kind of phone you have a $20 mediaMAX data package will give you unlimted access to the web that will not use your minutes, whether you’re using a phone, a PDA, or even a laptop card.”

I’m still waiting for a Bell Mobility ex-employee (or hey, a current employee will do) to spill the beans…

Nokia’s getting into the digital advertising game, announcing an ad network targeting mobile users.

Nokia today announced two mobile advertising services. Nokia Ad Service, is a fully managed service for advertisers to conduct targeted advertising on mobile services and applications. Nokia Ad Service consists of a group of mobile publishers forming a mobile ad network and a platform to deploy, manage and optimize mobile advertising campaigns. Nokia also introduced Nokia Advertising Gateway, a private label service for third party Publishers and Advertising Aggregators that want to extend to relevant mobile advertising. Nokia Advertising Gateway operates as an intelligent switch, selecting between text, visual, audio and video ads – depending on the user’s context – and feeding the ad to the device.

This is interesting for a number of reasons. Obviously, many people expect mobile advertising to experience the same growth we’ve seen over the past few years with internet advertising. Nokia’s move to get in the middle of that revenue stream could yield significant rewards for the company. Of course, they’re not the only one’s moving into that position.

Clearly the carriers are going to want to make a play to capture advertising revnue, particularly in the US and Canada, where the carrier is the party that controls the subscriber, not the handset manufacturer. Does Nokia’s new Nokia Ad Service put it in competition with carriers? Sure seems like it.

There are the pure-play mobile ad networks/technologies, like Enpocket, Third Screen Media, and AdMob. They’ve been trying to build out networks of their own, or assist carriers in creating mobile ad channels themselves. These guys are specialist players on the fringe of the larger digital ad business served by companies like DoubleClick, ValueClick, AOL’s Advertising.com, 24/7 Real Media, etc, each of whom could extend their ad serving technologies (and, by extension, their ad networks) into the mobile world. They could elect to build their own brands or to serve a mobile player through a licensing arrangement.

The elephant in any digital ad room, of course, is Google. Nobody imagines they’ll sit on the sidelines while others stake the high ground in the mobile ad space.

While the dynamics of the mobile ad market shake out, the advertisers are going to have to deal with a lot of friction and complexity. Mobile will be yet another isolated marketing channel with its own campaign characteristics.

Perhaps the only guaranteed winners are the agencies, who charge advertisers a premium to make all this complexity go away.

Source: Nokia Ad Service

I understand Microsoft’s in pitched battle on a number of fronts with Google, but I’m a little surprised to see Microsoft use copyright law as a way to differentiate themselves from the search engine giant.

Thomas C. Rubin, Microsoft’s Associate General Counsel for Copyright, Trademark and Trade Secrets, recently gave a speech to the Association of American Publishers (AAP), a group whose members have resisted Google’s efforts to add text from books in their ever-growing index of stuff. The gist of Rubin’s speech? That Google doesn’t respect copyright, and Google’s actions are designed to aid their own business at the cost of publishers:

I think we can all agree that using the Internet to enhance the market for works is a crucial endeavor and that doing so creates tremendous new opportunities to reach customers. However, the reality, as many of you know, is that authors and publishers often find it difficult just to cover their costs, let alone make a profit, in this new online world. At the same time, companies that create no content of their own, and make money solely on the backs of other people’s content, are raking in billions through advertising revenue and IPOs.

Rhetorically nice, but logically flawed. Rubin’s taking two different facts (the slowing of the publishing industry and Google’s rise) and juxtaposing them in order to make it seem like the two are related. It may be true that publishers face challenges to their business model, partly because of the rise of the internet. It may also be partly due to rising costs of raw materials (like paper), increased competition for personal discretionary spending; the money you and I might spend on books could just as easily be spent on DVDs, games, going to the movies, taking in a concert, or on digital stuff for my iPod. Perhaps publishing is just a lousy business; hit-driven, sensitive to commodity prices, distributed through a complicated supply chain, and increasingly sold through a shrinking number of larger retailers. No wonder it’s galling to see a company like Google (or Microsoft, for that matter) make money hand over fist.

But is Google really as parasitic as Rubin suggests? At the start of his talk, Rubin equates Microsoft to his audience, noting that Microsoft creates its own content. I assume he means software, otherwise he’s loading an awful lot of importance on Microsoft Press. But how, exactly, does Rubin think Google serves up those search results? Or delivers email, lets people blog, lets users create documents and spreadsheets, etc? If Microsoft Windows and Office qualify as content, then surely the software Google writes deserves the same recognition.

Google’s chosen path would no doubt allow it to make more books searchable online more quickly and more cheaply than others, and in the short term this will benefit Google and its users. But the question is, at what long-term cost? In my view, Google has chosen the wrong path for the longer term, because it systematically violates copyright and deprives authors and publishers of an important avenue for monetizing their works. In doing so, it undermines critical incentives to create.

As a rule of thumb, I never trust a lawyer when he definitively states what the law means, so when Rubin says Google “systematically violates copyright,” alarm bells go off. Last I checked, Google Book Search has yet to be ruled a copyright violation. In fact, in my marginally-more-informed-than-the-average-Joe’s understanding of things, it seems that indexing the full text of a book is no different than indexing the full text of a web site, and we all seem to accept that (including, I presume, the members of the AAP).

As for depriving publishers of cash, I fail to see how. Google’s not publishing the full text of books in their index. Their aim is to include books in search results. Google’s publishing partners can elect to show as much or as little of their books in the browsable results as they please. Google won’t display much more than cursory information from works still protected by copyright when the rights holder isn’t one of their partners. In either case, being searchable puts a book’s content in front of a much wider audience than the current distribution model.

How can having their books become part of the source most people turn to when they need information do anything but help publishers?

If any publishers in Rubin’s audience were at all inclined to give Google the benefit of the doubt, he hauled out YouTube in an attempt to scare them back into line:

In essence, Google is saying to you and to other copyright owners: “Trust us – you’re protected. We’ll keep the digital copies secure, we’ll only show snippets, we won’t harm you, we’ll promote you.” But Google’s track record of protecting copyrights in other parts of its business is weak at best. Anyone who visits YouTube, which Google purchased last year, will immediately recognize that it follows a similar cavalier approach to copyright. Since YouTube’s inception, television companies, movie studios and record labels have all complained that the site knowingly tolerates piracy. In the face of YouTube’s refusal to take any effective action, copyright owners have now been forced to resort to litigation. And Google has yet to come up with a plan to restrain the massive infringements on YouTube.

Again, Rubin’s playing fast and loose with facts and logic.

YouTube is a very different beast from Google Book Search. Anyone can submit content to YouTube. Sure enough, some of that content will be submitted by someone other than the author for the purposes of copyright. I call them “fans,” Viacom probably calls them “pirates.” Google Book Search, on the other hand, requires submitters to verify that they have the authority to proffer the work in question to be indexed.

Rubin also overstates his YouTube case. YouTube has a wealth of authorized content, submitted by owners like the NHL, CBS, and NBC. It’s a platform; it can be used properly, for the benefit of all, but it can also be used illegally. Sort of the same way Windows can and Windows Media can be used to build legitimate digital content services, as well as providing the infrastructure for a massive black market in file sharing. I would hate to think that Microsoft’s own legal staff has adopted the position that just because a platform can be used improperly, it should be assumed that any use of it is illegal.

The problems publishers face are a result of many factors, including their business model coming into conflict with technological change. Any time a lawyer steps up to say that the law protects your industry from technological change, though, beware. That line of reasoning always yields results that are bad for the customer, bad for technology companies, and ultimately won’t protect the industry facing these challenges.

What’s more, I’m disappointed with Microsoft’s use of this forum. They’re a world-class technology company. Surely they have some concrete solutions to offer the members of the AAP? This was an ideal opportunity for Microsoft to get in front of a multi-billion-dollar industry and demonstrate how they could help grow that business. After all, Google’s having a hard time making its case with these people, but the pub
lishing industry recognizes that they can’t stand still in the face of increasing digitization. Unfortunately, Microsoft sent a lawyer to do a man’s job. Save for a few warmed-over nods to Microsoft’s book search project, there was nothing besides anti-Google FUD on the menu today. Publishers didn’t get anything they could use to reinvigorate their industry online, and Microsoft gets a swarm of blog posts like mine.

What a pity.

Source: Thomas C. Rubin: Association of American Publishers

In Consumerist’s 8 Confessions Of A Former Verizon Sales Rep, you get 8 useful tips for getting the best deal from Verizon:

1. Never get a 2-year contract. “The only benefit to a 2 yr contract is a $50 savings on your phone. Its not worth it. Take the $50 and get a 1 year then you can upgrade to a new phone every 10 months.”
2. Verizon reps get tons of money from new lines and certain accessories and text packages, take advantage of this. “VZW makes $ off the service, not the phones. Tell them you don’t want to mail in the rebate… Also tell them you will buy the accessories, and text package. Trust me here, these are 2 of the biggest metrics for the reps. Return the accessories the next day and call customer care to cancel your text package.”
3. Mention the lost or stolen program to get 25% off a new phone, even if you’re under contract. “Who’s to say you didn’t lose it?”
4. If you’re on a rate plan of $59.99 or higher, you can get “a new phone (and new contract) for the discounted price after 12 months.”
5. Insurance is a rip-off. “It costs too much and has a $50 deductible.”
6. Tell them you’ll sign up for the Unlimited Data Plan with your Treo. “Speaking of Treos, often they offer an extra $100 off if you get the Unlimited data plan. Get it. Save $100 and cancel it the next day if you don’t want it. The leverage here is amazing also because that high end data package counts as a new activation in a roundabout way for the rep. None of the data packages are contractual.”
7. Reps don’t get as much money if you’re still in a contract. “If you upgrade on the phone with Verizon, the store reps won’t be as motivated to help you.”
8. Ask for a loyalty credit on the phone before going to the store.

I’m in Canada, where Verizon ain’t, so these tips won’t apply to me. Any former Bell Mobility reps out there who’d like to spill the beans?

In an article in The Guardian titled My new mobile is lumbered with a bewildering array of unnecessary features aimed at idiots, Charlie Brooker complains about his Samsung mobile phone:

It seems to have been designed specifically to irritate anyone with a mind. It starts gently – a pinch of annoyance here, an inconvenience there – but before long the steady drip, drip, drip of minor frustrations begins to affect your quality of life, like a mouth ulcer, or a stone in your boot, or the lingering memory of love gone sour.

I understand his frustration.

The features offered by the more expensive mobile phones offered by my provider — Bell Mobility (whose motto could be “great signal, not-so-great phone selection, semi-amusing TV commercials”) — or any provider, for that matter, don’t seem worth the added expense. Hence I went with a relatively simple phone: a near-bottom-of-the-line Samsung that doesn’t even feature polyphonic ringtones. The only “special features” of the phone that I’ve ever used are SMS text messaging and the alarm clock function (it’s handy when travelling). The only feature I wish I had was Bluetooth syncing with the Address Book application on my Mac laptop.

Like many people, I’ve been using my mobile phone as a pocket watch. This phone even has an extra display you can read when it’s snapped shut, which is perfect when you just want to know what time it is.

With all the other mobile phones I’ve had, being cut off from the network didn’t mean that I was also cut off from knowing what time it is. Those phones would simply rely on their own clock. Not my current phone: when I’m in the subway and the network is inaccessible, the phone doesn’t show the time. Instead, it displays an animated dish antenna and tells me that it’s attempting to find some phone service, as pictured below:

This annoys me to no end. I want to know the time, and all the phone wants to do is go “Ooh! Look at me, boss! See how hard I’m working for you, boss! Pleasepleaseplease buy more Samsung products!”

Thanks to this, I’ve grown to become annoyed with the animations that the phone insists on playing whenever I turn the phone on or off. Must it display the Bell Mobility logo whenever I turn it on? Trust me, I know that my phone service is Bell Mobility: I get a bill from them every month. (Bell Mobility, if you really want my attention, how ’bout you pay me every month instead?) Almost as annoying is the animation that plays when I turn off the phone — an array of cubes that shrinks and rotates to display the message “Powering off”. Although I know that it’s good to have some kind of feedback, my reaction to this over-the-top animation is “I knew that — I pressed the ‘off’ button, didn’t I?”

It’s been a while since I’ve gone phone shopping — is it this way with all mobile phones, or just the Samsung ones?

Family-social-network-cum-genealogy-site Geni has gone from $0-$100MM (in valuation) in eight months (I’m sure the “seven weeks” in Mike’s TechCrunch post quoted below is a typo).

Seven week old Geni raised a $10 million second round of financing last week, led by Charles River Ventures (see our coverage of CRV here), with a post-money valuation of $100 million.

This is a 10x increase in valuation for Geni. The company’s first round of financing, led by Founders Fund, was $1.5 million, at a $10 million post-money valuation.

Sacks describes Geni as a “social network for the family.” It provides an easy to use (and easy on the eyes) Flash based family tree. As you add family members, they are optionally emailed to register as well and help fill out the tree.

I’ve used it (only to build a family tree so far, I haven’t spammed my family and in-laws with invitations yet), and it’s very straightforward as family tree builders go. My hat’s off to the Geni team.

Still, it strikes me as weird that we’ve got a $100MM social networking site whose primary population will be dead people.

Source: $100 Million Valuation For Geni

The good news: a major band has released their latest album, in its entirety, as DRM-free MP3 files.

The bad news? It’s the Barenaked Ladies.

I kid because I love. And also because, as a Canadian of a certain age, I was practically force-fed BNL from their earliest days, whoring their self-produced tape release on MuchMusic (the nation’s music station, if you must know).

Mike “TechCrunch” Arrington says the album will be released through Amie Street, the digital download service where tracks start out free, becoming more expensive as they gain in popularity (capping out at around a buck, I think).

The songs will only be free through the first few downloads, and will start to rise after that. But even at full price, listeners are getting quality music, DRM-free. Let’s hope other labels follow Nettwerk shortly. Market driven prices and no DRM = Music Nirvana.

I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the major labels to follow suit, Mike.

As for Amie’s “market driven prices,” I beg to differ. Since there’s no scarcity (there’s an infinite number of copies of any digital track) there’s no market condition making these tracks more expensive as the demand increases. That happens when there’s more demand than there is supply. While I wish all success to any company trying to do something different in digital media retail, it bugs me when people refer to Amie Street’s pricing model as market based.

Source: Barenaked Ladies: New Album. Free. No DRM. Now.