Not for what?

Not for profit, my rear.

Get a load of this:

Mozilla at the Caltrain terminus in San Francisco – this tripe is everywhere in the station.
G1, kit lens @25mm, 1/25, f/5, ISO320.

Why, I am asking myself, does a web browser software maker obliterate nearly every square inch of the Caltrain terminus at Townsend and 4th in San Francisco – I mean walls, floors and hanging flags so that you can no longer see the station clock – with the most tasteless ads proclaiming its genius and decency, never missing an opportunity to scream at you in foul orange that they are a ‘not for profit’. This is just about as credible were the US Defense Department proclaiming it exists for the greater good of the future of mankind. (Hint: It exists because of oil).

The reality must be that Mozilla is onto such a good thing that it has decided to blow tons of its profits on costly advertising to grow its net income further because, hey, you and I are paying for it. Here’s how it works. The Mozilla Foundation owns the Firefox product and has the not-for-profit status. The Mozilla Corporation makes a lot of money on the back of this stance. I’m not privy to their financials but would not be surprised to find that there are hefty ‘administrative’ or ‘management’ fees or some such tripe being paid by the Foundation to the Corporation, making sure the Foundation makes no net income. Hey, it’s a not for profit suddenly, both as organized (under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code) and as reflected in its financial statements. Likely the Corporation then pays out all net income as compensation to its senior people, the CEO of which sits on both Boards …. so you get to say you are ‘not for profit’ while living like Riley. And pay zero corporation tax into the bargain. Meanwhile you can proclaim to the whole world that the code monkeys writing the software are paid peanuts, and that’s true.

More about their structure here. By making Google the default browser in Firefox, Google ponies up likely north of $100mm a year to Mozilla – details here. Why bother with this money shuffling when you could simply overpay your executives from one corporate entity? Because excess compensation in a not-for-profit attracts far greater scrutiny from the tax authorities than any corporation’s pay check does. Have you seen the pay of US banksters’ recently? Has the IRS required a return of any of that egregious pay? No. And because there are millions naïve enough to buy the ‘not-for-profit’ claim, they use Firefox for that reason – meaning they are unwittingly suckered into using Google for search – and allow Mozilla to get more money from Google for directing you to Google’s advertising.

Meanwhile, by all means use Firefox if it works for you (the latest Version 4 has almost caught up to Safari as regards speed, having been in the slow lane for ever, and its use of fonts still needs work). But don’t use it in the mistaken belief that related advertising dollars are making their way to feed the world’s poor.

Moral of the story? Wherever Google is involved, get your BS meter out. Google’s culture of theft is deeply ingrained and spreads its tentacles to those who do business with it, like Mozilla.

This nonsense is everywhere in the Caltrain station.
“We believe in principle over profit”. Excuse me while I vomit.

….you can’t even see the station clock.

So if you find one of your favorite train stations suddenly obliterated in puke orange, sanctimonious, self-serving advertising, smell the rat, and don’t buy the message. Your city and nation is being robbed of millions of tax dollars and you and I pay the shortfall. Welcome to the Hall of Shame, Mozilla.

And as the next picture shows, they make a Freudian slip and admit it!

Posters on the floor!

Click bait

Thoroughly disingenuous.

‘Click bait’ is slang for web content with no substance with but one intention – to get viewers to your site and hopefully have them click through to something which earns you commission, even though the actual posting on your site has no substantive content.

Even quality sites are prey to this poor practice, and one of the worst examples I have seen is DPReview’s ‘Preview’ of the much anticipated Fuji X100. I’m not going to provide a link as the piece is so offensive as to discourage me from routing anyone else there but suffice it to say that, after allegedly handling an early prototype, which they laud endlessly for ‘feel’ and ‘quality” they failed to:

  • Take any pictures
  • Comment on responsiveness
  • Say anything about noise
  • Test the lens
  • Report on the quality of the sensor
  • …. and they even forgot to weigh the thing if, that is, they ever had it.

    In other words, a marketing piece, pure and simple. Scandalous. DPReview is owned by Amazon and the latter, which prides itself on respecting its customers, can do better.

    A far superior job (not difficult, given the hurdle posed by DPR) was done by the Norwegian site akam.no which not only got its hands on a very early prototype, but actually took real pictures with the camera and published them. While your Norwegian is likely no better than mine, you can still make sense of the test snaps on their site and suffice it to say that the definition of the lens and the high ISO performance both look very promising. Reading the related discussion at DPR discloses that the camera’s software is at a shockingly early stage of (in)completion, though it’s impossible to tell how old the prototype is. If it’s recent you can forget about seeing this camera on the market until the second half of 2011. The author of the Norwegian piece, Aethius, participates in the discussion which is well worth reading if you have any interest in the X100. He relates, among other things, that the software is so incomplete that the camera had to be restarted after every picture with many menu items garbled or missing! Not what I would call an alpha test model, let alone beta.

    Click the picture for the akam.no review.

    Aethius relates that this was an official tester from Fuji, his magazine having signed an NDA, which begs the question whether the CIA is in charge of Fuji’s marketing. It would take an organization which cannot distinguish Iraq from Australia to so bungle matters. Let’s see now – pre-release it in a nation where caribou outnumber humans, make sure it’s so buggy as to be scarcely worthy of attention, over promise and under deliver, raise the hype machine to the max practically guaranteeing dismay when the real thing hits retail, and make sure that only the worst things get said about it in the limited test and ensuing discussion. Buggy software, lens corrections yet to be completed and, worst of all for a camera whose primary (sole?) purpose is street snapping, it’s not especially fast or responsive according to Aethius’s comments in the discussion. Way to go, Fuji! Well, I suppose Leica needs the competition when it comes to rolling out buggy and costly hardware.

    As for DPReview, you are a dishonorable entrant to this site’s Hall of Shame.

  • Why the iPhone 4 sucks

    An engineer’s explanation

    Watch this Bloomberg video with the Consumer Reports (no ads, no conflicts) editor saying how the iPhone 4 is fatally flawed and you will understand why I was lucky to learn of the rumors right before setting out to pick mine up. I cancelled. I was right to do so.

    (Note: Unsurprisingly, the video will not play using Safari on my Mac pro. Use Camino or Firefox if you want the video – Safari only gets you the words, and doubtless those will be censored by 1 Infinite Loop any day, too).

    Here’s a simpler “a picture is worth a thousand words” explanation from an engineer. Me.

    Why iPhone 4 sucks

    Apple needs to “Do a Tylenol”. When that analgesic’s maker was landed with the problem of poisoned pills, they recalled every tablet in the world. The difference is that with the iPhone, few will likely die owing to non-existant reception (“Honey, I have chest pains, call the hospital”) but the error here is of the manufacturer’s making.

    Apple in deep denial? Heck, Joe Stalin would be proud of their behavior.

    So, Apple, how is your arrogance quotient today?

    Be sensible. Wait for iPhone 5.

    And it will be a long time before Apple’s hubris will admit error. Heck, they will fix it quietly and ship a better model. That’s about consonant with the falling standards of integrity at Apple.

    Disclosure: No AAPL position. Are you nuts?

    Just avoid holding it that way

    The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

    David Pogue, technology maven at the New York Times, is in what can only be called Desperate Back-Track Mode over the iPhone hold-it-wrong-and-it-dies design debacle. The poor schnuck failed to realize that his perfectly performing “free-for-as-long-as-you-want-it-David” iPhone4 tester was likely a carefully pre-screened model not some of the shelf POS you and I buy. Fair enough. Would you risk any old specimen assembled by one of a long line of suicidal Foxconn workers when your reviewer has an audience of millions?

    Pogue backtracks, while still stepping in it.

    So how should we hold it, Mr. Jobs?

    Ummm …. you mean not this way as in the video at Apple.com? Better check it out quick before they change it.

    Or this:

    Or even this:

    Hand on the antenna seam, every time.

    Yeah. Sure. I know. It’s an isolated occurrence.


    An isolated occurrence.

    Maybe a spot of the Old Bard is called for:

    I know BS when I smell it and this one reeks to high heaven.

    Disclosure: No AAPL position. You think I’m stoopid?

    Why I cancelled my iPhone 4 order

    A deeply flawed device.

    I was hoping about now to be regaling readers with my experiences with the much improved 5 megapixel camera in the new iPhone, available today for those lucky enough to get a reservation:

    Well, that is not going to happen.

    Just about the time young Winston and I were getting ready to ride our bikes to the Apple Store, what comes across the wires but this story?

    A moment later and I watch this shocking video.

    So we do three things:

    • Cancel the trip
    • Cancel the order
    • Sell all my AAPL stock

    Subsequent stories are confirming the issue is not isolated yet not universal. Mossberg of the WSJ made a vague reference to the signal strength bars fading occasionally, but made light of it – he’s not especially objective about AAPL so cannot be trusted.

    It seems to me that there are three possible causes:

    • Sporadic manufacturing errors dictating a limited recall – an embarassment for Apple
    • Egregious design error requiring a total recall – a big ‘no confidence’ vote in the stock
    • Software glitch fixed with a new online upgrade – an irritation

    None of these is good for a stock approaching nosebleed territory, no matter how attractive the fundamentals.

    I have no idea which applies, but as my 3G iPhone is the only phone I use, and as I have no landline, it’s nonsensical to contemplate an upgrade at this juncture.

    I’ll let others complete the discovery process and continue to enjoy my obsolete 3G iPhone in the meanwhile.

    Talk of dodging a bullet! My advice to any prospective iPhone4 buyer is simple. Wait. Let someone else do the bleeding for you.

    Note on older iPhones: You get the same effect, but less so, with older iPhones. My 3G shows 5 bars of signal lying on my desk, dropping to 2 or 3 once in the hand, after some 30 seconds. I can reliably replicate this behavior and it’s the same with iPhone OS 3.1.3 or iOS 4.0 – I tried both. After trying iOS 4.0 on my 3G iPhone I reverted to 3.1.3 – 4.0 adds little to a 3G iPhone (folders and a useless digital zoom for the camera) and unless you are really comfortable with use of Terminal and entering cryptic, high risk commands, think twice before upgrading to 4.0. My downgrade went well, but I know what I am doing – it’s anything but plug-and-play.

    The loss in indicated signal strength seems absolutely related to hand contact with the rear and sides of the iPhone. When I place my 3G iPhone in its auxiliary clip-on battery pack, which doubles its battery life, thickness and weight, I lose no bars, so it very much sounds like an electrostatic design fault to me.

    Be sure to check Comments for my analysis of the reason this poorly designed iPhone 4 is to be avoided until the hardware issue is fixed. Apple’s advisory today as to how to hold the iPhone is akin to the government telling you how to bend over before increasing your taxes. Unconscionable. Another Hall of Shame entry for the fruit company,

    I figure the costs at $4.20/share – 3mm handsets recalled @ $300 + $600mm in legal fees + triple damages at $2.7bn = $4.2bn for 1bn shares. However, the reputational damage and lost sales make this sum insignificant by comparison. The Android crowd must be partying.

    Disclosure: Sold all my AAPL position just before writing this.

    About this site

    Categories

    Archives

    Translate