Questions that I've not seen asked by the media:
I saw a fleeting reference that the well was about to be capped when the explosion occurred. Had they actually broken through to the gas and oil at that time? If so, what went wrong? Was there too much pressure for the blow-out preventer? Is it normal for there to be so much pressure after all this time? Why were they going to cap the well instead of pumping from it? How long were they expecting to have it capped? Were they intentionally not going to pump oil to increase the price? How much oil is down there?
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
Monetizing Twitter
Twitter is a hugely popular service however it has almost no income and is bleeding money by the barrel. It has somewhat painted itself into a corner as to its revenue options. Here's what I believe is the only reasonable choice it has to make money:
Twitter has a public API (Application Programming Interface) that allows inquiries into its database of user profile and tweets. That allows anyone to copy the whole database if they so choose, and several websites have so chosen; they completely mirror Twitter, e.g. twitoaster.com, and others have subsets such as celebritytwitter.com and tweetsoup.com. Even IMDb copied tweets from its index of actors and other in the industry. Google and other search engines index tweets as well. They're effectively stealing from Twitter! Those sites have advertising so their income is higher than Twitter's! Twitter has announced that they will be adding advertising to their website but that is totally bypassed by those using the parasite sites and the many smartphone applications, so its share of views is only a fraction of of those using Twitter.
Facebook has a similar problem: There are a growing number of alternatives to their website, including smartphone applications. Those generate no revenue for Facebook. They are trying to stop that, for example suing Power.com, but that's being met with significant opposition.
Twitter reported that in February 2010 it had over a billion tweets. Multiply that by the growing numbers of tweets per month and you get many terabytes of data. Each tweet is saved to disk and each one is searchable. That takes a lot of computing power that is overloaded at times; try getting older tweets in the middle of the day and you'll get a "Something went wrong" error. Twitter needs more computing resources but can't justify the expense without revenue.
It's obvious that an advertising-based model for Twitter can not succeed; there are too many ways to avoid seeing any ads. Twitters only possible choice is to charge its users. It is not feasible to charge those viewing tweets, you don't even have to login to do so. It only makes sense to charge users per tweet. Since you must sign-in to tweet, there's no way of avoiding a charge. If each tweet cost just 0.1¢ that would bring in over a million dollars per month. I'm not privy to Twitter's balance sheet, but that's probably more than sufficient to keep them going. Yes, that charge would discourage some from making as many Tweets as they currently do now, but if what you have to say isn't worth 0.1¢, then it's not worth saying and would improve the signal-to-noise ratio.
I don't see that many users would leave Twitter in protest even with the pervasive feeling that the Internet should be free. After all, sending a text message from a cellphone costs at least 10¢, a hundred times more! Of course the phone companies have unlimited texting plans but those are at least $20 a month. I have no idea what the average number of tweets per month per user is, but my own count of tweets is around 1000 per month. That's just $1! Who realistically could object to that?
I'm not sure why Twitter thinks they can survive with an advertising-based service and is not implementing a per-tweet change, but they must eventually see the tweeting on the wall.
Twitter has a public API (Application Programming Interface) that allows inquiries into its database of user profile and tweets. That allows anyone to copy the whole database if they so choose, and several websites have so chosen; they completely mirror Twitter, e.g. twitoaster.com, and others have subsets such as celebritytwitter.com and tweetsoup.com. Even IMDb copied tweets from its index of actors and other in the industry. Google and other search engines index tweets as well. They're effectively stealing from Twitter! Those sites have advertising so their income is higher than Twitter's! Twitter has announced that they will be adding advertising to their website but that is totally bypassed by those using the parasite sites and the many smartphone applications, so its share of views is only a fraction of of those using Twitter.
Facebook has a similar problem: There are a growing number of alternatives to their website, including smartphone applications. Those generate no revenue for Facebook. They are trying to stop that, for example suing Power.com, but that's being met with significant opposition.
Twitter reported that in February 2010 it had over a billion tweets. Multiply that by the growing numbers of tweets per month and you get many terabytes of data. Each tweet is saved to disk and each one is searchable. That takes a lot of computing power that is overloaded at times; try getting older tweets in the middle of the day and you'll get a "Something went wrong" error. Twitter needs more computing resources but can't justify the expense without revenue.
It's obvious that an advertising-based model for Twitter can not succeed; there are too many ways to avoid seeing any ads. Twitters only possible choice is to charge its users. It is not feasible to charge those viewing tweets, you don't even have to login to do so. It only makes sense to charge users per tweet. Since you must sign-in to tweet, there's no way of avoiding a charge. If each tweet cost just 0.1¢ that would bring in over a million dollars per month. I'm not privy to Twitter's balance sheet, but that's probably more than sufficient to keep them going. Yes, that charge would discourage some from making as many Tweets as they currently do now, but if what you have to say isn't worth 0.1¢, then it's not worth saying and would improve the signal-to-noise ratio.
I don't see that many users would leave Twitter in protest even with the pervasive feeling that the Internet should be free. After all, sending a text message from a cellphone costs at least 10¢, a hundred times more! Of course the phone companies have unlimited texting plans but those are at least $20 a month. I have no idea what the average number of tweets per month per user is, but my own count of tweets is around 1000 per month. That's just $1! Who realistically could object to that?
I'm not sure why Twitter thinks they can survive with an advertising-based service and is not implementing a per-tweet change, but they must eventually see the tweeting on the wall.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
About my scriptwriting
Thought I'd tell my film industry Tweeple about my scriptwriting background:
I've always had a day job in the computer business but after hours I write.
In the 1970s a friend and I wrote several film scripts that went nowhere at all. We did several "industrials" that were well received through. I kicked around many script ideas after that but never did anything until 2002 when I moved to L.A. for a job. I finally put down on paper a script I had been kicking around for years. I turned out the first draft in a week because all I had to do was write down what the voices in my head were saying. Of course it needed several more drafts before it was ready to show anyone and more drafts incorporating some good feedback I received. It didn't sell but I got a few assignments due to it.
I also joined The Scriptwriters Network (http://www.scriptwritersnetwork.org/swn/) and soon became the Program Director. I convinced well-known writers to come and talk to us at our monthly meetings. We also put on a series, "Story to Glory", where we invited scriptwriters to talk before and after screenings of their films. Some of the writers were: Barry Morrow, Bruce Joel Rubin, Lee and Janet Scott Batchler, and Michael Blake. I also helped out with some Sherwood Oaks Experimental College for Screenwriters programs.
I moved to the New York City area in 2003 and tried to get The Scriptwriters Network members around there interested in doing programs in NYC but no one wanted to do anything. Instead I joined a couple of Meetup.com groups. I helped out with some scripts there but nothing ever was produced. My job also was taking a lot of my time - computer jobs are rarely 8 to 5 - so I left my writing slide.
I'm now in the process of acquiring the film rights to a somewhat well-known book by an award-winning Young Adult author. (I'm keeping the details under wraps until the contract is signed.) My older granddaughter had read one of his books as a school assignment and had raved about it to me so I checked but found it had already been optioned. I kept checking periodically and in January found that IMDb no longer had a listing for it. I went through the publisher and was referred to the author's manager. He said that the book I was interested in was still under option but that most of the other books were available. I picked a couple that seemed promising and decided upon the one I'm optioning. I hope to sell it to the indie wing of a major or a true indie along with me as a co-producer.
I've got a cabinet full of ideas and other scripts. After my current project I'm going to see about a TV series that I expect will go over well. It's based upon reality but that's enough in the public domain that I'd not have to option life rights. It most closely compares to "Medium" but is action/adventure instead of a crime show and with a different method of "seeing".
Wish me luck with optioning the book. I'll keep you posted on what happens.
I've always had a day job in the computer business but after hours I write.
In the 1970s a friend and I wrote several film scripts that went nowhere at all. We did several "industrials" that were well received through. I kicked around many script ideas after that but never did anything until 2002 when I moved to L.A. for a job. I finally put down on paper a script I had been kicking around for years. I turned out the first draft in a week because all I had to do was write down what the voices in my head were saying. Of course it needed several more drafts before it was ready to show anyone and more drafts incorporating some good feedback I received. It didn't sell but I got a few assignments due to it.
I also joined The Scriptwriters Network (http://www.scriptwritersnetwork.org/swn/) and soon became the Program Director. I convinced well-known writers to come and talk to us at our monthly meetings. We also put on a series, "Story to Glory", where we invited scriptwriters to talk before and after screenings of their films. Some of the writers were: Barry Morrow, Bruce Joel Rubin, Lee and Janet Scott Batchler, and Michael Blake. I also helped out with some Sherwood Oaks Experimental College for Screenwriters programs.
I moved to the New York City area in 2003 and tried to get The Scriptwriters Network members around there interested in doing programs in NYC but no one wanted to do anything. Instead I joined a couple of Meetup.com groups. I helped out with some scripts there but nothing ever was produced. My job also was taking a lot of my time - computer jobs are rarely 8 to 5 - so I left my writing slide.
I'm now in the process of acquiring the film rights to a somewhat well-known book by an award-winning Young Adult author. (I'm keeping the details under wraps until the contract is signed.) My older granddaughter had read one of his books as a school assignment and had raved about it to me so I checked but found it had already been optioned. I kept checking periodically and in January found that IMDb no longer had a listing for it. I went through the publisher and was referred to the author's manager. He said that the book I was interested in was still under option but that most of the other books were available. I picked a couple that seemed promising and decided upon the one I'm optioning. I hope to sell it to the indie wing of a major or a true indie along with me as a co-producer.
I've got a cabinet full of ideas and other scripts. After my current project I'm going to see about a TV series that I expect will go over well. It's based upon reality but that's enough in the public domain that I'd not have to option life rights. It most closely compares to "Medium" but is action/adventure instead of a crime show and with a different method of "seeing".
Wish me luck with optioning the book. I'll keep you posted on what happens.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Why Garth Brooks owes Taylor Swift an apology
Early in 2009 Sirius XM interviewed Garth Brooks who was rebooting his career. During it he spoke of critics of Taylor Swift, "They shouldn't criticise her; in ten years she's going to be very good." Say what?! That's the most insulting compliment I've ever heard!
Taylor doesn't have the greatest singing voice in country music but she's a singer/songwriter! Most of the great singers are nothing more than instruments; they sing whatever is placed in front of them. There are also great songwriters but most can't sing in front of an audience. The great singer/songwriter is rare and Taylor is one of them. Yes, her songs are juvenile; she still is one. Would some prefer she write about things she hasn't experienced? She's less than a year older than my older granddaughter and less than two older then my younger one. Listening to her songs helps me to better understand my granddaughters.
She won twice as many Grammys in one night as Garth has done in his whole career. Yes, in ten years she's going to be better and compsing songs about the concerns of a thirty-year-old. I just hope they're not about a cheating husband or divorce.
Taylor doesn't have the greatest singing voice in country music but she's a singer/songwriter! Most of the great singers are nothing more than instruments; they sing whatever is placed in front of them. There are also great songwriters but most can't sing in front of an audience. The great singer/songwriter is rare and Taylor is one of them. Yes, her songs are juvenile; she still is one. Would some prefer she write about things she hasn't experienced? She's less than a year older than my older granddaughter and less than two older then my younger one. Listening to her songs helps me to better understand my granddaughters.
She won twice as many Grammys in one night as Garth has done in his whole career. Yes, in ten years she's going to be better and compsing songs about the concerns of a thirty-year-old. I just hope they're not about a cheating husband or divorce.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Avatar vs The Hurt Locker
It's a common belief that Academy Award ballots are filled-out by the spouses of the members as the members are too busy working to see the films. As most members are men, if the belief is true that means women do most of the voting.
Avatar has grossed $2.47B in theaters so far but has gathered only 16 awards. It's a film many people love enough to see more than once. Despite the alien setting it has a pretty formulaistic plot.
The Hurt Locker has been getting a lot of notice for its director, Kathryn Bigelow, because it's unusual for a woman to direct a picture of its genre. It's picked-up tons (67) of awards already but grossed only $16.1M in theaters. The plot is anything but predictable but is also unrealistic: our military does not operate as shown in the film.
So if we assume that women are going to do most of the voting, which film will bring home the Oscar for Best Picture? Are women going to vote for an appealing film - Avatar - or a war flick with no women in principal roles - The Hurt Locker - due to its director? Or are they going to hang a left and vote for The Blind Side?
If I were to bet, I'd pick Avatar, but I wouldn't bet the farm.
Avatar has grossed $2.47B in theaters so far but has gathered only 16 awards. It's a film many people love enough to see more than once. Despite the alien setting it has a pretty formulaistic plot.
The Hurt Locker has been getting a lot of notice for its director, Kathryn Bigelow, because it's unusual for a woman to direct a picture of its genre. It's picked-up tons (67) of awards already but grossed only $16.1M in theaters. The plot is anything but predictable but is also unrealistic: our military does not operate as shown in the film.
So if we assume that women are going to do most of the voting, which film will bring home the Oscar for Best Picture? Are women going to vote for an appealing film - Avatar - or a war flick with no women in principal roles - The Hurt Locker - due to its director? Or are they going to hang a left and vote for The Blind Side?
If I were to bet, I'd pick Avatar, but I wouldn't bet the farm.
How Obama screwed-up on health-care reform
Advertising is the science of convincing people they need something they didn't think they needed or that your brand is better then the others. The White House forgot about that (or maybe didn't realize they needed to sell their plan). For that matter, did they even have a plan? It seems to me that Obama said to the House and Senate leadership, "Go ahead and cobble together a bill," without giving the slightest guidance. Did he think everyone knew our health-care system is broken and how it should be fixed?
The average American thinks that his health insurance is adequate and that his medical providers charge reasonable fees, but the average American has never had a serious medical condition. Sure, they probably know a family member or coworker who has, but they probably don't know the financial details. They sign-up for payroll deductions and forget about the premiums until the next open-season and even then probably stay with the same options. If they were self-employed and had to pay the entire cost of their health insurance they would be very aware of the rates. If no one was buying, the sellers would have to reduce their prices.
So the average guy is thinking, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Somehow Obama missed the boat on that. He should have been speaking about the problems for months before a bill was ever introduced into Congress. He should have had the American public begging to have Congress fix the problems. He should have anticipated the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) about costs increasing instead of decreasing the Republicans would throw at it. Republicans can't fight much if their constituents demand otherwise. He should have had his congressional friends co-sponsor his bill instead of coming up with a bill full of earmarks. He did it right on the jobs bill that passed the Senate 70-28 today. He's doing that now but it's too late; the damage has been done. Is it irreparable damage? We'll soon see.
The average American thinks that his health insurance is adequate and that his medical providers charge reasonable fees, but the average American has never had a serious medical condition. Sure, they probably know a family member or coworker who has, but they probably don't know the financial details. They sign-up for payroll deductions and forget about the premiums until the next open-season and even then probably stay with the same options. If they were self-employed and had to pay the entire cost of their health insurance they would be very aware of the rates. If no one was buying, the sellers would have to reduce their prices.
So the average guy is thinking, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Somehow Obama missed the boat on that. He should have been speaking about the problems for months before a bill was ever introduced into Congress. He should have had the American public begging to have Congress fix the problems. He should have anticipated the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) about costs increasing instead of decreasing the Republicans would throw at it. Republicans can't fight much if their constituents demand otherwise. He should have had his congressional friends co-sponsor his bill instead of coming up with a bill full of earmarks. He did it right on the jobs bill that passed the Senate 70-28 today. He's doing that now but it's too late; the damage has been done. Is it irreparable damage? We'll soon see.
Why do we still have spam?
Spam is possible thanks to oversights in the design of SMTP (Simple Message Transfer Protocol). It was too simple. So why after all these years is it still being used? Why is it still possible to forge "from" addresses? Why haven't the major players fixed the problems?
It is very easy to design a system that makes it impossible to send out spam without identifying the sender's computer. Sure, a spammer could still take over another system and use it to send spam, but the millions of bounce messages the owner of that system would receive would certainly alert them that something is amiss. By positively identifying the source of spam the offending computers could be blocked.
Transitioning to the new protocol (call it EMTP for Enhanced Message Transfer Protocol) would be easy: Have the mail programs start using EMTP and add an option to allow receipt of SMTP messages. If that option is not used, a bounce message could optionally be sent back saying, "Get with it and update your mail program."
Why oh why has no one done this yet?
It is very easy to design a system that makes it impossible to send out spam without identifying the sender's computer. Sure, a spammer could still take over another system and use it to send spam, but the millions of bounce messages the owner of that system would receive would certainly alert them that something is amiss. By positively identifying the source of spam the offending computers could be blocked.
Transitioning to the new protocol (call it EMTP for Enhanced Message Transfer Protocol) would be easy: Have the mail programs start using EMTP and add an option to allow receipt of SMTP messages. If that option is not used, a bounce message could optionally be sent back saying, "Get with it and update your mail program."
Why oh why has no one done this yet?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
