A Bit Eclectic

According to TechCrunch, Facebook acquires FriendFeed.  I never really used FriendFeed and I rarely log into Facebook, but this little tidbit on the FriendFeed blog caught my attention:

We’re still figuring out our longer-term plans for the product with the Facebook team.

That was a response to questions about the future of the friendfeed.com.  My guess is the service will eventually be rolled into Facebook and the standalone site will be no more.  Facebook would not have acquired the company without a goal in mind, and the fact that FriendFeed won’t disclose it sends a pretty clear message.  I doubt the Facebook executives have the buy know think later mentality that we sometimes see with Google.

According to the Wall Street Journal and the Chicago Tribune, Starbucks is opening a store in Seattle that drops the name and traditional Starbucks feel. The store is simply named after its street address and built to look more like a small local coffee shop. There is no way to tell that the store is actually owned by Starbucks, customers won’t even see baristas with green aprons. The new coffee house will even serve beer and wine to mimic other local coffee places. This is a move by Starbucks to drop the big corporate image and attract new customers.

I give Starbucks credit for trying to attract new customers and take a different route, but I don’t think it will work. From my observations, people that go to Starbucks want a sugary Starbucks drink. Some people don’t even like coffee, but would happily get a mocha as long as the mermaid is on the side. Starbucks has a strong grasp on these customers; our local Caribou Coffee couldn’t even compete and ended up shutting their doors. This cash cow of Starbucks loving caffeine addicts is best milked by multiple, easily accessible, locations. A new name and look will only confuse them as they seek out another Starbucks.

However, Starbucks is most likely targeting a different group. They are trying to get the people who look down on the corporate giant, those who go off the beaten path. I believe this segment either has a coffee place they go to regularly, or would see through Starbucks’ disguise. The venture could be a risky move if this segment doesn’t fall for the bait. Starbucks wouldn’t bring in any new customers and confuse their loyal customer base.

It is good to see Starbucks trying new things to bring in revenue, but this could be a risky move that might not pay off. Their strong brand recognition is both beneficial and a hinderance to future growth. At this point they might have their hands tied.

There seems to be a fog around the current credit crisis.  People know it exists and that is the extent of their knowledge.

The Crisis of Credit Visualized does a great job of explaining the basics.  This video explains the foundation of this crisis and helps clear up some confusion.

The Crisis of Credit Visualized from Jonathan Jarvis on Vimeo.

The above video is a great overview.  To get more detail on the topic, also check out:

PBS Frontline - Inside the Meltdown – This has a great video that goes step by step through the meltdown and what caused it.

CNBC – House of Cards – The video isn’t on the site, but it does list future show times. (See below) This explains the mortgage securities.

CBS 60 Minutes – Wall Street’s Shadow Market – This one is a little more dry but much shorter than the others. It explains the complex securities and covers credit default swaps.

UPDATE : Here is the “House of Cards” segment on Hulu.

There is a growing problem in the gaming industry. The game developers and hardware creators are trying to protect their future profits and as a result are putting an extra burden on their customers. This isn’t new, but it seems to be getting worse.

One recent example is Spore from EA. EA is so concerned about protecting their “intellectual property” that they have an extremely restrictive DRM on the game. The DRM limits the buyer to 3 installs of the game. They can put it on three different computers, three times on one computer, or any other combination. This may not seem like a big deal, but there are other things that would take up one of these installs.  If you uninstall the game and want to reinstall it later on, that would take up one. You also have to re-authenticate the game (using another one) if you change a piece of hardware. If you go beyond your alloted three, you have to call EA and ask for permission to install a game you paid for.  It is ludicrous to think that I can be locked out of a game that I spent money on.  Also, EA only allows you to create one account per purchase. This means a family would have to purchase multiple copies if multiple people want accounts. The most ironic part of this is that this didn’t stop pirating. In fact, some people say it actually increased the number of pirated copies.  If you don’t believe that people are upset by this, then take a look at the game’s 1 star Amazon.com rating.  Most of the reviews complain about the DRM.

All that this DRM accomplished was burdening those who purchased the game.  My guess is it didn’t guarantee more profits for EA.

Now I am reading more reports of this stupid crap. Nintendo’s new Wii Speak is being shipped with similar insane restrictions. According to Ars Technica:

The package came with a surprise: a 16-character code is needed to download the Wii Speak channel from Nintendo. The fine print is clear: the code will not be replaced if lost. There is no other way to download the channel. Without the channel, the Wii Speak hardware is just a useless microphone.

The main difference from EA’s approach is that this could actually work. It is much easier to pirate Spore than hack the Wii Speak.

This still presents issues that could affect those who are honest and purchase it legally. If Nintendo won’t reissue the code, what happens if you buy a new Wii or get a refurbished unit under warranty? It is unclear if there will be any exceptions, but as of now it doesn’t look like it.

The Ars Technica article points out that Nintendo’s motive is to reduce the used game market. I feel that too much time and energy is being spent creating ways to lock in users and not enough is put into creating good games. The best way to make money is to create an outstanding product.

Photo by Ian Muttoo

The move to develop a web browser tells a lot about the direction in which Google is moving with its future products.

Google Chrome was set in motion primarily to enhance their web business. They are developing a browser hoping that it will push others to adopt new technology and innovate. They want to spark others to build more advanced web browsers so they can push out better web apps.

Google is currently limited by a bottleneck imposed by the current web browsers. To an extent they are at the mercy of Microsoft/Mozilla/Apple when it comes to how powerful, and useable, their web apps can be. They are making a strategic move to give direction to web browser development in order to further their core businesses.

If you don’t believe that, then look at the revenue source. They have far more to gain from attracting users to new web services than gaining browser market share.

This leaves me wondering what new product Google has that drove them to try and change all web browsers just to release it.