The Idiocacy Of Jeff Zucker and The Downfall of NBC

This past Sunday, NBC Universal chief executive Jeff Zucker rallied against Apple saying that Apple had destroyed the ability of traditional media companies to set profitable rates for their content online. He also revealed that in negotiations he not only wanted more flexible pricing, he wanted a cut of iPod sales.

This is just the latest example of Zucker's incompetence. The man who took NBC from first to worst wants a cut of iPod sales? Do television manufacturers give him a cut? It's the same principle. His argument is that the iPod would be nothing without content. So would the television set. The fact is Zucker had no clue how to run a network in the first place, and now that he's faced with a changing marketplace, he's completely stumped.

NBC Universal has a history of bad tech decisions, such as teaming with Microsoft for MSNBC and exclusively backing HD-DVD. So because Apple knows how to sell media, and Jeff Zucker doesn't, he has to go after them. But why should anyone take seriously the man who destroyed NBC? Jack Welch, former CEO of NBC's parent company General Electric, has stated if he were still in control, Zucker would have been fired by now.

If NBC wants to survive in this brave new world, not only do they need as many video distribution partners as possible, they need to fire Jeff Zucker.

Stupid Is As Stupid Does

I've come to expect stupidity from Washington DC. After all, politicians say more stupid things than anyone else. But House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) took the bobby prize for his comment that a good report on Iraq from General Petraeus would be "a problem."

How can a good report be a problem? Apparently, Clyburn thinks we should fail in our endeavors in Iraq. It seems he wants reality to mold itself to his preconceived notions.

Of course stupidity isn't limited to politicians. Let's not forget the lawyers.

Apple is being sued because the battery in the iPhone cannot be removed by the owner. Upon realizing this Jose Trujillo, rather than just returning it, decided to sue and seek class action status for his lawsuit. His lawyer, whose court filings border on the ludicrous and have been widely disparaged in the media, apparently can't spell or read. The filings read as though they were written by an elementary school student and the basic premises of the lawsuit aren't even close to real.

People need to realize that just because you want something to be true, doesn't make it so.

As The Wireless World Turns

Are we seeing the start of a coup in the world of cell phones? Since their debut the U.S. market for cell phone has been dominated by the carriers. The top three (currently named AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint Nextel)have held an iron grip. Handset manufacturers had to bend to their will. Customers were trapped by draconian contract requirements. But their seems to be a shift in the air.

It started with the iPhone. AT&T agreed to give up its control to land this phone. Apple took phone activation out of AT&T's hands. AT&T had no control over the features, and was not allowed to subsidize the phone. It was the first time a handset maker gave up control. Hopefully, it won't be the last.

Meanwhile, Sprint Nextel, which has been suffering a mass exodus of customers due to their poor network and worse customer service, sent out letters to 1200 subscribers cutting off their service. The reason for this? The customers called customer service too many times about problems. Rather than fix the problems, Sprint decided to get rid of the customers.

Enter the New York State Consumer Protection Board. If the customers had decided to terminate their service, they would be charged $200 per phone for breaking the contract. Therefore, the consumer agency is insisting that Sprint Nextel pay each of the consumers the $200 since they broke the contract. It remains to be seen whether or not the company will comply with the demand.

With new wireless spectrum set to be auctioned off by the FCC, it seems there may be some changes coming. 40 years ago the Lily Tomlin played Ernestine the telephone operator and spoke the line "We Don't Care. We're the Phone Company. We Don't Have To." Now, it looks like the wireless companies may learn that's not true.

When Should Consumers Really Be Protected?

Several items have occurred in the past few weeks, all under the name of consumer protection.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal announced he was going after Apple, Inc. In his announcement he stated that there were two complaints in Connecticut and 25 more nationwide about iPods that didn't work and that Apple had not resolved the complaints to the customers' satisfaction. Apple has sold 700 million iPods and 27 of those people aren't happy. While I'm not disparaging the people who have the complaints, 27 out of 700 million means get your own lawyers and duke it out in civil court. This is not a case that should be wasting taxpayer money.

Blumenthal is also going after Best Buy because they have different prices on their web site as they do in their stores. Guess what? So does Barnes & Noble. So do many stores. Why? Because it costs more to have a physical location than it does to have an online store. Higher costs, lead to higher prices. When a company tries to defraud its customer, then there should be protections. When consumers are simply too stupid to do their research, then let the buyer beware.

The Dairy Association is pulling ads that touts the weight loss benefits of milk. Despite scientific evidence that states calcium assists in weight loss, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has complained to the FTC and fought to have the ads removed. Is their concern based on scientific evidence? No. The PCRM, far from having the consumers best interests at heart, is a vegan group dedicated to stopping people from eating anything that comes from an animal. They would prefer that everyone stuck to a diet of twings and berries. Once again, a loudmouth group of activists has pushed their own agenda in front of the public good.

Editorial Independence Is Great But...

There has been a lot of talk about "editorial independence" lately. Between the Rupert Murdoch/Dow Jones talks and the editorial battle at PC World, the topic has gotten a lot of play. As a writer and editor, I'm a big proponent of editorial independence. The ability to write an editorial or cover a story without worrying about what an advertiser or corporate management might think is precious. It is the cornerstone of a free press. But while everyone has been concerned over the possibility of editorial interference by various parties, why is no one concerned about the obvious decline in editorial quality.

The battle at PC World was over an article titled "10 Things We Hate About Apple" written by Editor-in-chief Harry McCracken, the article was killed by the CEO, allegedly because it would anger Apple CEO Steve Jobs. If that was the only reason to halt the article, then the CEO absolutely overstepped his bounds. But there was another, much more important reason not to run the story.

It was bad.

There was nothing redeeming about the article. The list of things were all items that had been discussed before. The article added nothing to the dialogue. No new information. No strong point of view that hadn't been heard. There was no purpose to the story, except possibly to fill up space and suck up to Apple bashers. The companion article, "10 Things We Love About Apple," was just as bad. It served no purpose except to suck up to Apple fans and take up space.

In today's world of 24/7 news via television and the Internet, there is so much time and space to fill that we have lowered our standards so we can fill it. But is bad work any better than no work. Do we want to teach our children that anything is good enough, or do we want to teach them to do their best work? I think it is time to say that "good enough" really isn't.

The Greener Apple

Much ado is being made about Steve Jobs' message about Apple's environmental policies, but I found the coverage on the Greenpeace site even more interesting. The first thing I noticed is that apparently, Greenpeace can't read.

Steve Jobs used the phrase "So today we're changing our policy." According to the mangled quote on Greenpeace's website, this means Apple is changing it's polluting ways and Greenpeace is more than happy to take credit for forcing this change in policy.

Read the statement.

It doesn't say that Apple is changing it's environmental policy. It says it is changing its policy about not talking about future plans. Steve Jobs then goes on to talk about what Apple has already done. Apple has been green for years, its just that the idiots at Greenpeace weren't aware of it.

Of course, Greenpeace isn't about the environment. They don't care about the environment, they care about power. "Basically, they are using sensation, misinformation and scare tactics." Who said this? Patrick Moore, founder and past president of Greenpeace. Patrick Moore is someone who actually cares about ecology, which is why he left Greenpeace.

"The environmental movement was basically hijacked by political and social activists who came in and very cleverly learned how to use green rhetoric or green language to cloak agendas that actually had more to do anti-corporatism, anti-globalization, anti-business and very little to do with science and ecology," he stated on Penn and Teller's Bullshit.

Greenpeace targeted Apple because it's a high profile, trendy company. Not because there was any real environmental issue there.