The Left Side of Normal Airplanes, The Internet, and Everything Else

I saw this story on Slashdot today which reminded me of a discussion I had with some co-workers over lunch recently.  We were discussing the cost of content on a physical format vs. the cost of the same content in a digital format.  The article linked on Slashdot has a gem of a quote from Ian Bramley, Ipsos MediaCT's director, who conducted a survey on the matter: "People's perceptions are that they're not prepared to pay as much for digital content - they make the connection that it's not a physical disc and therefore it should be cheaper."

He mentions "perceptions" here as though they are just something that people dreamed up.  Yes, content has a production cost (whether it is a television show, movie, record, or a video game as this article was focused on).  Yes, that production cost is the same regardless of how the content is distributed.  Yes, the actors, musicians, producers, studio, copyright holders, etc. all need to be compensated for their efforts and risk to produce the content.  However, it seems to defy logic that the end result should cost the same when downloaded in a digital format over the Internet as it would it if were purchased on physical media at my local Best Buy or Wal-Mart.

Logic says that physical media should cost more.  There are a lot more factors at work with physical media than there are with digital media.  Some manufacturing facility has to produce the blank media to hold the content (CD, DVD, etc.).  The content has to be physically pressed or burned into the physical media, a manufacturing process that takes time and energy.  The physical media then has to be packaged in a box of some sort (another physical process).  It then has to be stored, consolidated into bigger boxes, put on a truck and shipped hundreds or thousands of miles (cost of fuel, labor, trucking equipment, etc.), and then warehoused, unboxed, and delivered to stores in each region.  There the media will take up shelf space, have to be organized by store employees, and finally have a transaction that will usually be handled by a live cashier at the store.  There is also the profit margin for each of the businesses involved (manufacturing, shipping, warehousing, retail, etc.) which can vary wildly.  A retail markup of 25-30% by itself isn't unreasonable for many products.  In recent years, retailers have been cutting back their CD inventory and slashing prices, primarily because people looked at an $18 CD and decided to just go download it from the Internet for free instead.  Apple's iTunes Music Store offers many tracks individually for around a dollar.  Most people used to buy an entire $18 CD just to get one or two songs, and when they realized they could just go to Napster and its descendants and get those two songs for free, the bottom fell out for the music industry.  Instead of fighting back with a legal way to purchase songs online for a reasonable amount, they fought tooth and nail to save their old model, even resorting to filing suit against grandmothers whos grandchildren had used their Internet connection to share a few songs.  They treated their customers like crap, and their customers responded by abandoning traditional purchase methods (CDs) even more.  Then Apple came along.  With their huge iPod market, they nearly single-handedly slapped the industry into the 21st century.  Apple makes TONS of money on iTunes sales.  Their track price around a dollar and album price around ten bucks is reasonable, in most people's eyes, and well below the $18 suggested retail price that CDs were going for.  Apple leveraged their digital infrastructure and meets people's needs at reasonable prices well below what the physical media used to cost.

For Bramley to suggest that a digital download, whether it's a game, a movie, or a song, should cost nearly the same as the same content on physical media is just laughable.  Sure, it has to cost at least as much as the production costs and leave some room for profit, but if you lower your expenses by 40% and think you can keep the difference for yourself, either your customers will eat you alive or you will be buried by competition.  The RIAA and MPAA act like cartels and essentially have no competition, and their customers aren't as stupid as they'd like.  Fools like Bramley are just pandering to what the industry wants everyone to believe.  If he, or anyone else, can show compelling evidence that it really does cost nearly as much to offer a digital download as it does to manufacture, package, ship, and retail physical media, I am certainly willing to have that discussion and change my mind.  Yes, servers cost money, use electricity, and have to be housed in a data center with lots of cooling, bandwidth, and technical staff to watch over it all.  Computing resources and bandwidth are becoming incredibly cheap, however.  It's estimated that Facebook operates upwards of 60,000 servers in multiple data centers around the world (I've heard they're even building their own data centers now as well).  Facebook does this with revenue estimated between $700-$800 million and serves 400 million users.  The recording industry had revenues of around $8.5 billion in 2008.  Even if it were half of that, they could easily build out a digital distribution channel and retail directly to customers, or partner with an existing retail giant to do it for them (as Apple has done).

If the electronic game industry wants to move to digital and improve online sales, they need to cut back their margins and pass along some of their cost savings to their customers.  People realize that digital content should be cheaper than its physical counterpart, and continuing to charge the same prices for digital versions of content will just be a repeat of what's been happening in the music industry.

This won't be a big deal to anyone but me, but I've finally breached the 5,000 reputation point on ServerFault with an accepted answer to a question about figuring out e-mail storage quotas.  ServerFault is one of those "why didn't I think of that" type of sites.  It's a free Q&A site for anything related to professional server, system, and network administration.  People ask questions and other people provide answers.  Answers get voted up or down and the person who asked can "accept" an answer.  When answers get voted up or your answer is accepted, among other things, you earn reputation points.  Sure, it's sort of silly, but in a field where "do you know these things and can you get the job done" is of the utmost importance, something like this can put you on top of the stack of resumes as a way to demonstrate to future employers that yes, you really do know your stuff and are even willing to help others with it as well.  (Don't worry, I'm happily employed at present but it can't hurt to be thinking of the future.)  Besides, it's just fun and I learn new things in the process (which is fun by itself).

Aside from web development (programming), network administration is my other primary area of interest when it comes to technology.  As a web developer, this naturally translates to managing networks that relate to Internet infrastructure.  This leads to lots of experience with web servers, e-mail systems, etc.  Through ServerFault, I can lend a hand to others who have less experience and gain some assistance when needed from those who know more than I do (like I did yesterday with a question about a network share getting dropped unexpectedly).  It's a great system and I hope that the questions I've answered have helped to improve people's knowledge and skills.  Onward to 10,000 and beyond!

Many years ago (2003 or 2004), I bought a Logitech cordless duo which included a wireless keyboard (no model number that I can find) and an MX700 wireless mouse.  A couple of months ago, the mouse finally took a turn for the worse.  The scroll wheel became erratic, the buttons began to stick, and it was becoming extremely difficult to use.  One day I retired it to its charging cradle (the battery charger hasn't worked for years and I would swap rechargeable batteries with a wall charger) and brought out my even older (~2000) USB Trackman Marble trackball.  It still works, but I prefer the mouse and missed the thumb operable "back" button that the mouse had.  Switching from a mouse at work to a trackball at home doesn't help matters, and it was beginning to impact my productivity in small but perceptible ways.  So, I decided it was time to get a new mouse today.  I trekked out to Best Buy to sample their wares and see what sort of advancements have been made in mouse technology.  Since 1999 I've used Logitech mice and keyboards, so I have an affinity for their products.  They're well designed and built to last, that is, if you stick with the higher-end stuff.  At first I thought I would get a new "duo" set which includes the keyboard and mouse with a single wireless receiver.  The sets they had available were ok, but the mice that they included felt small compared with the full-size mice that I've used for 10+ years.  The keyboards were also different from what I'm used to (I actually have the same wireless keyboard at work and at home so that I don't have any adjustment to make from one to the other and can use the exact same typing style, finger placement, tactile response, etc.).  Since I'm happy with my keyboards and they still work perfectly (I take really good care of them), I ultimately decided to look at mice by themselves since there was a wider variety to choose from.

After a lot of handling their sample units and opening boxes for the ones they don't have on display (it's amazing how much sales attention you get when you start opening boxes, hehe), I finally decided on the Logitech (surprise!) Performance Mouse MX.  This corvette of the mousing universe has everything my old mouse had and more.  First, it uses Logitech's relatively new "unifying" receiver.  It's a tiny USB receiver that I can just leave plugged in to the laptop all the time.  It only sticks out about 4mm.  I really wanted bluetooth, but apparently bluetooth mice just aren't all that common in the PC universe and tend to be designed for use with a Mac.  This tiny USB receiver will do just fine though.  The technology allows the same receiver to be used by any newer Logitech keyboard or mouse, so no need for larger tethered receivers or multiple receivers for different devices (I will still need to plug in the older receivers for the keyboard though, unless I decided to upgrade those at some point).

The other interesting advancement is what they're calling Darkfield Laser Tracking.  I haven't read up on how it works, but the nearly universal red LED or laser on most modern mice is missing in lieu of a "dark" laser which is capable of tracking even on clear glass and other glossy surfaces, something older tracking mice have had trouble with.  As I move the mouse around or pick it up, there is no red glow coming out anymore.  I can't say that I'll miss that.  Also notable is that the new mouse only uses a single AA rechargeable battery instead of two.  They also claim that it will last far longer per charge than the old one did.  Instead of having a docking cradle, they include a micro USB cable which plugs in to the front of the mouse (just like a corded mouse).  This can be connected to the computer or a USB wall charger so you can keep using the mouse, even while it's charging.  It includes a multi-LED battery meter display which comes on the first time you use the mouse after it has been idle for a while and turns off after a few seconds as to not be distracting.  It will blink red when the battery is low (in several months if their predictions are accurate).  It includes the standard scroll wheel with vertical and horizontal scrolling.  The wheel can be set to either "smooth" or "clicky" mode depending on which you prefer.  I mentioned the "back" thumb button already, but it also includes a matching "forward" button which I use far less often.  The new mouse also includes a "zoom" button which may come in handy now and then, and another button which defaults to a task switching feature (similar to alt+tab).  I may reassign that depending on how useful it proves itself to be.

Ideally, since the receiver can stay with the laptop, I will just take the mouse with me in the laptop bag as well.  If I do that regularly I'll need to find some sort of smooth padded case to put it in before it gets tossed into the bag with my other goodies.  It's a fine piece of work and something I'll use for hours on end every day.  So far today it's been a dream, and hopefully it will last as long as my previous mouse did and I can give you another update on mouse advancements in 2016 or thereabouts.

Just for kicks, the old mouse (left) and new mouse (right) are pictured below.  The old one has some serious cruft and discoloration after years of constant use.  The silver paint actually rubbed off in places from a few years of sweaty hands while playing Team Fortress.  I don't play the games as much anymore, so hopefully the new mouse will look better when it reaches retirement age.