Research In Motion (RIMM), the company responsible for inspiring the creation of CrackBerry.com, a site dedicated to BlackBerry users and abusers, is going to be causing many BlackBerry owners to miss out on work this upcoming Friday. People are expected to line up bright and early at Verizon Wireless retailers nationwide to get their hands on the one of the most highly anticipated mobile phone releases left in 2008, the BlackBerry Storm. But will it live up to the hype?

The reviews are out, and so far, the consensus is that the BlackBerry Storm is a good phone (certainly one of the best in Verizon’s arsenal); however, if the expectation was that this was to be an iPhone killer, then the mark was sorely missed. Don’t take my word for it though.

What They’re Saying

Wall Street Journal’s Walter Mossberg believes that the Blackberry Storm is a “good option” for those looking for a new phone:

Overall, the Storm is a very capable handheld computer that will appeal to BlackBerry users who have been pining for a touch-controlled device with a larger screen. And it offers yet another good option for anyone who is looking to buy one of the new, more powerful, pocket computers.

PhoneDog’s Noah Kravitz, a new friend of mine, sees some potential in the device, but he believes that the clickable touchscreen is holding it back:

Is Storm RIM’s iPhone killer? And is it a suitable replacement for the BlackBerry user accustomed to tapping out emails on a physical QWERTY board? Honestly, I don’t know yet. I have to spend some more time getting used to typing on Storm before I can answer that question. So far I’m impressed by the device’s software and Verizon’s network … it’s that whole newfangled clickable touchscreen that I’m still trying to wrap my thumbs around.

Engadget’s Joshua Topolsky might have had too high of expectations, and he certainly pulled no punches:

Going into this review, we really wanted to love this phone. On paper it sounds like the perfect antidote to our gripes about the iPhone, and in some ways it lives up to those promises — but more often than not while using the Storm, we felt let down or frustrated. Ultimately, this could be a great platform with a little more time in the oven, but right now, it feels undercooked — and that’s not enough for us.

Wired Magazine’s Daniel Dumas shared a similar opinion to myself. He gave the BlackBerry Storm a 6 out of 10 rating:

Would we recommend the Storm? If you’re locked into a contract with Verizon, want a touchscreen phone and are willing to put up with an OS that moves like a tranquilized yak, then yes the Storm is for you. Otherwise, your best bet is an iPhone or the very capable BlackBerry Bold. In any case, Apple need not fret; even in the face of a legitimate iPhone killer, they still offer more touchscreen goodness for the money and will undoubtedly, ahem, weather this storm.

PC World’s Yardena Arar felt that the BlackBerry Storm is, overall, a failure:

But people who were hoping for a credible iPhone alternative fortified with BlackBerry’s strengths as a mobile tool for corporate travelers will likely find the Storm a disappointment. When it comes to touch interfaces, Apple still has no peer.

It’s a Storm Alright

Unfortunately for Research In Motion, the negativity has drawn down the appeal of the BlackBerry Storm dramatically.

Sure, CrackBerry addicts are going to line up for this phone, regardless of the reviews, but as someone who was looking forward to picking up a new phone on Verizon’s network, this news isn’t reassuring.

In other words, it looks like this journalist could be waiting for brighter opportunities.

“I Hate to Lose,” Mark Cuban’s latest blog post boldly states — this begs the question of whether or not Mr. Cuban’s hate for losing would drive him to a life of crime to avoid losses. At this current moment, the SEC has reason to believe that he would cheat and commit a felony to do exactly that.

Copernic (CNIC), previously Mamma.com, is the stock that Mark Cuban is alleged to have participated in insider trading with. The SEC has charged Mr. Cuban with selling 600,000 shares of the company when he received insider information that the stock’s value would be diluted due to outside investments. The value of the stock sold was around $750,000.

Ironically, Copernic was said to have been delisted from the NASDAQ exchange on November 3, 2008, by a CNBC analyst. In-depth reviews of the company’s trading history amidst delisting pressure from NASDAQ  possibly revealed information that caught the SEC’s attention.

If this news turns out to be true and Mr. Cuban admits to the crime, his punishment will not involve jail time. However, if he fails to admit to the crime and is found guilty, he could serve jail time, just as Martha Stewart did. Considering the scrutiny that Wall Street is under by both the public and the government, the timing couldn’t be any worse for Mr. Cuban.

Surely this news will forever be a scar on Mark Cuban’s reputation.

If you want to talk about a company with problems, Yahoo! would likely come up in the conversation. The once unstoppable internet giant has quickly faded away from the spotlight, and, worse still, it has almost faded entirely from existence. With angry investors, impatient media, and one persistent Carl Icahn, Yahoo needs to get its act together soon if it wants to continue being independent. There are a few potential solutions to all these problems that might help Yahoo to right itself, but they are few in number.

Problems

Yahoo, as previously noted, has problems. The company has always lacked flair and ingenuity when it comes to creating something from scratch. When you evaluate Yahoo! Mail, Yahoo! Buzz, Yahoo! Video, Yahoo! Maps, My Yahoo!, Yahoo! Messenger, Y! Live, and many other products that Yahoo has either created or acquired, they are, admittedly, good, but most of these products are knock-offs of existing products and services, which, in many cases, are better than the Yahoo equivalents.

Yahoo does have a few gems, but, for the most part, attempts to leverage those successful products and services have either failed or have yet to be attempted.

The company is profitable, but that is not saying much.

I can’t begin to offer an explanation as to why Yahoo sat aside—seemingly paralyzed—while Google dominated the markets that Yahoo previously had so much control of, but I do know that it is time for Yahoo to take action and acknowledge their problems.

Search

Google dominates the search market—even that is an understatement; however, Yahoo was once considered the best search engine of the World Wide Web. Unfortunately, that didn’t last long—after Google came along, Yahoo barely stood any chance as the company never took serious competitive action. Google was receiving plenty of hype, and Yahoo’s search was not nearly as efficient, detailed, effective, nor clean.[1. Lev Grossman of TIME Digital wrote an article in May of 1999 about how a new breed of search engines were going to bring on the competition to companies like Yahoo. Google certainly lived up to the hype.]

Yahoo's homepage in 1999. Credit: The Wayback Machine.

I can recall frequently landing on Yahoo’s homepage with my 56k dial-up modem, and it is interesting to note that Yahoo tended to have the most complex home page of any site I can remember. Yahoo’s homepage is essentially a portal, but I have never been happy with it. I will state that Yahoo Search’s homepage is nicely done, but it would be better if users began at the Yahoo! Search or allowed users to specify like is currently done with Google’s iGoogle homepage.

Yahoo's homepage is vastly different today.

Yahoo still holds enough control—granted, a minuscule amount—to the point where they can salvage their search business, so don’t count the company out yet. Yahoo ranks in a fairly distant second place to Google with regards to search engine traffic. It needs to take a very different approach to search if they stand to compete; however, I really believe that any company trying to compete with Google in the search market is a lost cause before it begins.

People have Google and Wikipedia. If live search, Cuil search, human powered search, and automated search can’t dethrone Google, what search engine can?

Advertising

Yahoo hasn’t had the best luck in the advertising department; although, most companies are struggling in the advertising industry. It has gotten so bad that Yahoo actually struck a deal with Google to have Google’s AdSense units displayed on Yahoo’s sites. If that isn’t a sign of detrimental times for Yahoo, I don’t know what is.

The company hasn’t been really open about its advertising performance, and there is no certainty to what Yahoo has planned. Yahoo actually does have an innovative advertising platform in the works, but more on that later.

Social Networks

A hit social network could have helped Yahoo, but most attempts have met failure head-on. The company has given some decent efforts to create these types of services, but the execution, marketing, and lasting appeal has always been lackluster.

Even though Yahoo has not had much success in the social networking arena, Yahoo’s executives seem relatively happy with the way things are going.

Lawrence Casiraya of Inquierer.net learned from Yahoo’s executives that the company is not afraid of other social networks. While other companies, like Facebook, are developing new, unique applications and services for social networks, Yahoo is content with the idea of integrating existing social networking services into Yahoo:

… Yahoo! executives, who held a short briefing with local media in a visit to Manila, stressed that the company is in fact embracing social networking as it introduces new features in tools like Yahoo! Messenger and Yahoo! Mail.

“Does it make sense to reinvent the wheel inside social networking services? Or do we take such services and instead integrate them into Yahoo!?,” answered Scott Dietzen, Yahoo! senior vice president for global communications products.

Dietzen went on to state that “… it is much easier for us to embrace new forms of social networking than the other way around.”

The irony in that statement is that Dietzen has practically represented Yahoo has a lazy company. It would appear that Yahoo no longer wants to actively develop new social applications and networks, but instead, they simply want to sit on the sideline and bring in data from others. What is forgotten is that sites like Google, Facebook, and Digg are already ahead of the game. Just as Yahoo sat on the sidelines when Google took over search, will Yahoo—again—be a spectator instead of an innovator?

Also, Dietzen, of course you don’t attempt to “reinvent the wheel inside social networking services.” You create unique, creative social networks that are able to compete with the likes of Facebook, Orkut, and MySpace. You take a completely different and smart approach to this problem. If you are not going to attempt to do this, get out of the business of social networks.[2. Allowing friends to edit the profiles of their friends in a wiki-like manner with Yahoo! Mash was, for lack of a better word, idiotic.]

Wall Street

Jerry Yang has confidence from a majority of Yahoo’s board members, but investors and Carl Icahn are not nearly as impressed. The investors are ready to revolt.

Mark Nelson, co-founder of Mithras Capital, is an impatient investor who owns around 1.7 million Yahoo shares. “These guys are just drinking their own Kool-Aid,” Mr. Nelson Stated. “They don’t get it. They don’t understand the realities of their business.”

John C. Dvorak, while on TWiT 154, called Yahoo a “junk collector” that “buys dumb things.” Mr. Dvorak also believes that the company is very disorganized, and has failed to capitalize on its properties.

A majority of the shareholders are of the same opinion. Many feel that the company has done little to restore competitiveness in-line with Google’s dominance over the past several years. They also believe that a lack of decision making at Yahoo has resulted in the companies demise—that is a given.

After Microsoft’s failed offer for $31 per share for Yahoo, the company was served up a dosage of reality. It really could be all over for Yahoo. The threat of takeover still looms, and the threat of having everything go downhill for the company and its investors is as high as ever.

Things could be worse—Jerry Yang has a 66.3 percent approval rate from investors.

Carl Icahn

Carl Icahn—this man is something else: a ruthless investor, a Yahoo disruptor, and he looks like a mob leader (all wonderful qualities, of course). Ever since Microsoft has showed interest in Yahoo, Carl Icahn has been in the newspapers.

Mr. Icahn is the man that wanted to seal the deal between Microsoft and Yahoo. The deal did not happen, but with him on the board, there is still an extremely small chance of this deal happening.

The only thing Yang can do is keep Yahoo profitable. If Yang can’t turn Yahoo around, Icahn is sure to be front page news somewhere in the world again.

Mr. Icahn now holds three seats on the Yahoo board, and this gives him quite a voice at the company (yet he didn’t even show up for the first meeting). Perhaps having someone so ruthless could end up being a good thing for Yahoo, but if Mr. Yang lets this turn into a negative influence, it will only hurt both parties.

Solutions

When problems arise, solutions generally follow, and Yahoo needs them now. The company’s disappointing performance must be put aside. These issues can be fixed.

Scaling Back

Yahoo needs to take a good deep look into their company’s infrastructure to see what is working and what is not working. If it isn’t working, dump it. If it isn’t making money, monetize it or sell it. If it is making money, make it even better.

Creating new knock-offs of existing products and services is futile at this point. Yahoo has acknowledged this, but the point of scaling back on things should ultimately result in more efforts put into developing products and services that are actually of quality and profitability.

Social Search

The one area that remains relatively untouched is social search. Google has already began experimenting with this, but I would hope that Yahoo was already working on a solution. I see this as one of the very few areas where a new or existing search engine can compete with Google. Why shouldn’t Yahoo attempt such a thing?

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to realize that social search is the future. Having your peers, who share the same interests and search habits, influence search results while keeping those searches efficient, effective, and relevant is no easy task, but if a company can pull it off, I would be every impressed. Google might be reaching too far by trying to integrate this into Google Search, but even so, it will not be attempted on such a scale that I speak of. Yahoo should be working on stuff like this instead of messing around with social networks and knock-offs.

This is something that I can see Yahoo doing to make up for all those poor excuses of social networks that they have attempted before. The company has one of the most popular social bookmarking sites—tie it in with a social search functionality. Do something innovative here, Yahoo.

The One Stop Shop

The reason why Google is so successful is partly because most of what you want to do is already at your fingertips at Google. If you want to email someone, develop a presentation, catch up on news, and chat with colleagues, you can do all of that with Google’s services. Since many users already have an account with Google, why bother switching? Well, people are not switching—it is convenient—and that is the point.

Tighter integration is one of the few ways that Yahoo can promote its brand, and it is a shame that this has not been done already.

Yahoo, if you want to do something impressive, consider this—redesign every service that the company has and make them look and function in a similar fashion (e.g. Microsoft Office), and then integrate everything together so that it is a truly unique and efficient experience for the users. One of my biggest complaints with Google is that I can access my email, but I have to open a new tab to access Google Reader and Google Documents. Why can’t it be done in a way where everything is accessible on a single page? I’m sure someone is smart enough at Yahoo to figure it out. If I can come up with this idea, surely someone at Yahoo can put it into action.

What I just described is the type of change that is required to generate some buzz with Yahoo, but I don’t think the company is organized enough to pull something like this off. If Yahoo was able to organize such a massive effort, it might be one of the best decisions the company has ever made.

Identity

Miguel Helft of the New York Times wrote a great piece titled “Yahoo Is Still Searching for, Well, Yahoo.” Helft reported that Yahoo’s identity crisis is taking its toll on the company.

Yahoo needs to sit down and have a nice long chat—which might take days or weeks—about determining what Yahoo is as a company. Not only does Yahoo need to find out what their focus is, but they need to let the public know what they intend on being. Yahoo’s public image is tarnished, and that is something that is needing fixing.

The company needs to redirect its focus to one or two specific areas that can be capitalized on. They have spread themselves too thin, and it is no longer viable for Yahoo to manage all these different types of services unless the company takes my previous advice.

Successful Endeavors

Amidst all the chaos, there are some amazing products that Yahoo has in its arsenal.

Yahoo! Finance

Yahoo! Finance is widely considered the best place to go for all things financial, from stock prices and charts to company fundamentals and technicals.

Google Finance has improved quite a bit, but it still lacks when compared to Yahoo! Finance. This is another opportunity for Yahoo to monetize a service. Yahoo, why not provide a service that allows people to access better and faster data for a small subscription fee? Live streaming charts for a competitive fee sounds like a decent offer.

I would like to imagine that Yahoo! Finance is making some amount of revenue for Yahoo.

Delicious

Delicious (previously del.icio.us) is one of the most popular social bookmarking sites on the web. Yahoo acquired this technology in 2005, and it has been met with much success. With the recent release of the revamped Delicious, which was gathering dust in the beta stage, Yahoo is enticing former users and new users to give the service a shot. The only problem with Delicious is that it hasn’t been monetized.

Considering how popular the service is, it is disappointing to know that Yahoo hasn’t taken advantage of advertising opportunities. StumbleUpon, for example, allows publishers to pay for extra traffic; one would think that Yahoo could figure out something similar to this concept—perhaps have sponsored listings on the front page? Regardless, a few basic advertising unit would be better than nothing at all.

Either way, Delicious is continuing to grow, and with some smart marketing and clever monetization techniques, Delicious could help contribute to Yahoo’s revenue.

Delicious is also a gold mine when considering the amount of information that can be used to help Yahoo target users for advertisers. I am unsure if Yahoo currently does anything like this, but it would certainly be a shame if the company was not.

Flickr

Most photography enthusiasts and pros around the globe have probably heard of Flickr. The photo sharing site has slowly evolved into one of the most visited sites by photogs. It was snatched up by Yahoo in 2005, and it should be considered one of Yahoo’s best moves in the 21st century. Flickr has well over 25 million unique visitors per month, and according to Compete’s statistics, it is even outperforming Digg.

Yahoo has managed to successfully monetize Flickr with the addition of “pro accounts.” It has been estimated on a Flickr discussion board that the company brings in around $2.5 million for the company, but these estimates are extremely unreliable.

There are remaining questions over Flickr’s future. Things get more complicated when you consider that the two co-founders recently departed from the company. Competition from sites like SmugMug is really heating up.[3. I am considering the possibility of signing up for an account with SmugMug.] This means that Yahoo should expect the competition to possibly lower revenues from Flickr in the long-term—unless Flickr can bring in more new users to offset the competition and lower prices.

Yahoo! AMP

Yahoo still has potential to push out some impressive AdSense-like technologies. This was, after all, one of the areas that Microsoft was interested in acquiring from Yahoo.

Yahoo! AMP is the tool that advertisers are ready to pounce on. This tool is targeted to advertisers and marketers who want to get their products and services noticed. It features a revolutionary interface that makes me excited.

It will, supposedly, make the life of an advertiser much easier while providing those advertisers with detailed information. Sure, it has been done before, but there is always room for improvement.

Unfortunately, AMP was supposed to be released over a month ago, but AMP’s Senior Director of Engineering, Adam Hyder, departed from the company yesterday. These delays are really frustrating for everyone involved, but it would be in Yahoo’s best interest to tighten all the bolts instead of rushing the service to market.

This could potentially be the all or nothing project that Yahoo is relying on. This technology will have to stand up to what Microsoft and Google will be pulling out of their hats to compete with it. One can only hope that Yahoo can deliver the goods and bring in the advertisers and publishers before it is too late.

The Future

What lies ahead for the future of Yahoo? Not many can say. Some believe Yahoo will fold to a better offer. Others believe the company can make a huge comeback. I just think it is time to get real about what Yahoo has to accomplish.

Yahoo is a company with so much potential; the company had so much of a presence on the web that these problems should have never arisen. For far too long has Yahoo stood on the sidelines with its passive mentality. The company now has to pick up from its pathetic showing after the past few years.

I am sick of seeing this company let others step all over its face. What is the point of Yahoo hanging around if they are not going to do anything to save themselves? I am sure that Mr. Yang is a smart guy, and I know people like to route for the underdog, but what in the hell was Yahoo thinking these past few years? What were the thousands of employees at Yahoo doing all this time? I just want some explanation from Yahoo as to why they allowed this to happen. It is beyond disappointing.

To make matters even more dramatic, Jerry Yang has decided to keep his company in light of a great offer from Microsoft. He has basically ensured the company’s investors that Yahoo is more valuable than what the market believes. If Jerry doesn’t have products and services in the works that can restore Yahoo to the great power that it once was, I think he is a complete idiot. This might end up being one of the most disappointing decisions in the tech industry if Jerry Yang has deceived his investors. Then again, it might have been the underdog comeback that could see some Hollywood action. In the end, Jerry Yang is either going to be the hero or the idiot when this whole thing ends.

All of this is in the past, but the time that Yahoo has is quickly fading away. Yahoo, it is time to deliver the goods and pull off some miracles.

FriendFeed, my newest and favorite obsession, is pretty much the “people reader” thing that I was just referring to. It is already here, and I didn’t even realize it—it took me nearly 30 seconds after the initial thought to have FriendFeed come to mind. It is easy to forget, but FriendFeed’s impacts are very important to the future of content creators and consumers.

When you consider where we have come from since the beginning of the printing press, it is just astounding that it has taken this long for a change. What change am I talking about? Well, first let’s evaluate what has, for the most part, been happening for the longest of times.

Newspapers / Magazines

Before the internet, there was a majority of print-oriented readership. Most of us were focused on the actual publications instead of the authors. Everyone who has picked up a newspaper has read the articles, but how many of you can name those writers who have contributed to that newspaper? If you have an amazing journalist or editor, you might recall a name or two—you might even remember an article that this person has written—but my money is on the idea that you don’t remember who wrote what. It was just some journalist, right? Same thing with magazine articles. Beyond the occasional well-known contributer, it’s mostly the content and the magazine that gets the recognition.

It might have been a lack of being able to get down to more of a personal level with the author, or it might have been the fact that few readers cared about who actually wrote the content. Regardless, it is interesting to note that book authors have had a very different experience.

Book authors have always had the pleasure of getting most, if not all, of the credit for their works. When they release a top-selling book, the author was and still is usually well rewarded with money and fame. Newspaper and magazine journalists, for the most part, simply earned themselves an opportunity to write for the publication again.

Of course, people will argue the fact that only a single person (or perhaps a few co-authors) writes a book while newspapers are a collection of dozens of journalists, but it doesn’t change the fact that the authors are rarely well recognized.

I do believe that all this is unfair to the author. Put yourself in their shoes. If you wrote an amazing article for the New York Times, wouldn’t you be upset if everyone was praising the New York Times instead of you, the author? Trust me, it happens more than we can imagine.[1. As a side note, this very same thing happens in other industries. The video game industry, for example, rarely has the development studio getting the credit for the hard work. Instead, it is the publishers who get all the glory. All they did was throw the money in for the project. It just makes me feel bad for the developers. Thankfully, some developers have changed this, like Bungie Studios, but it still happens.]

When you consider how the Internet has brought about so much change and so much information, it can be mind boggling how old habits stay the same, but tools and services have been developed that are shifting the focus entirely.

People

It is funny how within only a month or two ago I created two folders in my feed reader, NetNewsWire, labeled “Journalists” and “Bloggers.” Since doing that, I rarely add blogs to my feed reader; instead, I add people to my feed reader. This usually correlates to a person’s personal blog, but you get the point. However, FriendFeed does a better job than NetNewsWire could possibly do at this current point in time, and that is why I believe FriendFeed is so popular with so many people.

While I recently wrote about how people should make sure to maintain their personal blogs, I didn’t place nearly enough emphasis on the fact that tools like FriendFeed could be far more valuable than any personal blog. It changes how we see content and people. We still see these blogs, but we now place greater importance on who wrote the content instead of the actual content itself.

It is almost an everyday occurrence for me to read a great article and find out if I know that author. If I don’t, I will search for more content that the author has created. It is a genuine interest in learning more about the person, and I never fully realized how great it is to want to do something like that.

For me, this change only began happening late last year. I really started paying attention to who I was reading instead of what I was reading. But now, after becoming heavily involved with Twitter and FriendFeed, I feel like this is the way it should have always been.

I believe that FriendFeed is directly contributing to this idea that it is not the publication, the article, nor the site we should be focused on, but instead, it is all about the creator. It encourages conversation on a personal level, and it really gets you in tune with the author.

Louis Gray, author of LouisGray.com, recently opened my eyes to this concept after I constantly saw his name and content mentioned throughout my FriendFeed account. At first, I didn’t have a clue about who he was, but, without even viewing his blog, I began understanding the type of person he was. I ended up becoming much more interested in him as a person, above all else. So, by the time I actually read his blog for the first time, I already knew what to expect, and I wasn’t disappointed.

Nowadays, if I want to learn about Windows, I go to Paul Thurrott. If I’m feeling the Apple, I’ll visit John Gruber. If I want tech journalism, I’ll read some Saul Hansell. If I want to get my game on, I’ll talk to Chris Kohler. If I want to learn photography techniques, I’ll admire Thomas Hawk. And, finally, if blogging has been complicated, Darren Rowse has my cure. The list just goes on and on.

For me, this was not possible around two to three years ago. The change is amazing.

The Shift

I believe that this kind of transition is good for the blogosphere. I also believe that this will help keep the blogosphere healthy. The circulation of great content will continue, and the amount of bloggers who will become well-known should increase. (As most FriendFeed users who read this would probably agree.)

My emphasis has slowly shifted away from focusing on the site or blog itself—it is now about the individuals that I know have things in common with me that I want to be friends with. These are the people who I would want to have discussions with about the topics I care about. These people are who I would prefer to be my audience, no matter where on the web I am writing.

This was—unquestionably—an epiphany. I hope that anyone reading this article realizes how human nature can really evolve with the help of technology. This is one of those moments where I believe technology has really done good for a group of people who rarely got the attention they deserved, and it allows the readership to get involved as well.

If anything, my appreciation for services like Jaiku, Twitter, Identi.ca, Facebook, and, of course, FriendFeed has increased immensely.

Chris Pirillo mentioned which applications will be included on his blog:

• Dream Capture is a utility that connects to your webcam and allows you to record audio and video. It’s simple and straightforward, and easy to use.
• Headline is brand new. It’s a full-featured feed reader, with an ultra-minimal UI.
• Mac Pilot 3 is a utility that has it all when it comes to optimizing Mac OS X.
• iConquer is a great game. If you’ve ever played the game of Risk, you’ll love this. It has amazing graphics.
• Mahjong Forests is a favorite of mine. I love Mahjong, so I’m really looking forward to playing this.
• Shoebox Express is a solution for organizing all your photos by content.
• Caboodle is a way to collect random snippets of text or images on your machine. It’s a great way to organize chaos on your desktop.
• Narrator is a program that will read out stories in multiple voices. You can take a series of text, and choose a voice to read it all.
• WriteRoom is distraction-free writing. You can run this and do your work, while avoiding all the distractions on your computer.
• Scribbles is a simple drawing utility for the Mac that is easy to use.
• Money is an Accounting app for OS X. It has a great user experience and interface.
• Operation is an easy software choice to help you manage projects. It’s clean, and feels like a native app.
• Aurora is basically an alarm clock with a buttload of options.
• Compositor is bascially an image editor. It has many features comparable to PhotoShop.
• Sofa Control allows you to control your applications remotely.

I would like to highlight WriteRoom, Caboodle, and Money in particular. Those three alone—in my opinion—would be a great deal alone for $50. WriteRoom was also previously mentioned in my “Favorite Applications for Mac OS X” article, so I highly recommend it.

There are twelve other quality applications that are included in this deal—granted, some applications are more useful than others—but, again, this deal would still be great if only three or four of these applications were included.

This makes me wonder if it is all too good to be true. There are a few questions that I have about this bundle (if you know the answers, please e-mail me): how long are the licenses good for, can you receive discounts or free upgrades if a new version of the software comes out, and is support included? (I will not purchase this deal until these questions are answered, so keep an open mind if they are important factors for you.)

There is still a little over a day remaining before the deal goes live. I don’t have any more information than what has already been shared, but I will be checking out the site tomorrow to learn more. I’ll update this post as more information comes along.

Regardless, I’m going to remain optimistic about this deal. I think it is almost a steal if it is legitimate. If you have recently migrated to a Mac computer or are interested in some quality software, this might be a great investment to consider. The Mac Bundle Box goes on sale in around 24 hours.

[Update: The Mac Bundle Box is now available for purchase. My issues are not addressed on their site, but I am still considering purchasing it.]

The Facts

Chris Flores of the Windows Vista Team Blog shared some facts about the “Mojave Experiment”:

• The focus group took place over three days in San Francisco and was conducted earlier this month.
• All participants were either Mac, Linux, or users of versions of Windows that came before Windows Vista. Respondents were chosen from the focus group organizer’s database, called at random, but then selected based on having a low perception of Vista (<5 rating on a scale of 1-10).
• The participants were given a demo by a trained retail salesperson – geared towards the experiences they seemed most interested in following a series of interviews. While the retail salesperson drove the demo, it was geared by the interests and direction of the participant.
• We did not use some geeked out or custom built PC. We used an HP Pavilion DV2500. It had 2GB of RAM and was running an Intel Core 2 Duo CPU T7500 @ 2.20GHz. The OS was a 32 bit version of Windows Vista Ultimate.
• Of the 120 respondents polled, on a scale of 1:10 where 10 was the highest rating, the average pre-rating for Windows Vista was 4.4. After they saw the demo, respondents rated Mojave an average of 8.5.

Finally, some people have asked if Mojave is the big marketing project we’re working on – it’s not. The Mojave Experiment is just that: an experiment we conducted on the fly that yielded interesting results. We’re publishing the video today because we think you’ll also find it interesting.

I would like to point out the fact that Chris has said that the “Mojave Experiment” is not the primary marketing project that has been allocated $300 million. If you were thinking that this was the $300 million at work, take a deep breath and relax.

What They’re Saying

Sarah Perez believes that Microsoft is learning from their mistakes:

The takeaway from this new campaign, and the $300 million plus one yet to be revealed, is that Microsoft is finally learning their lesson. And yes, there is a small portion of the community that will still rally behind their efforts. Believe it or not, the community as a whole doesn’t hate Vista. We just never loved it.

Harry McCracken thinks that the “Mojave Experiment” is clever, but he questions the users who were interviewed:

Mojave is a very clever conceit, and for some Vista skeptics, it’s probably effective. But…

The folks in Microsoft’s clips must be, by definition, casual computer users–more advanced types. even if they weren’t Vista users, would have been able to tell that “Mojave” was Vista. (Microsoft doesn’t say how it screened its Mojave subjects or whether its trickery was effective in every case–I wonder if any of the test subjects politely asked, “Why are you showing me Windows Vista and saying it’s something else?”) You can see in some of the clips that these people are not deeply into PCs: When one guy is told that Windows Media Center lets him watch TV for free, he looks dumbstruck.

Jason Chen questions if those users would feel the same way if they used Windows Vista on a daily basis:

What’s interesting about this experiment is that sure, people who don’t know anything/enough about Vista are kneejerking their way into hating it. These people are the ones that are easily convinced with a slight-of-hand that Vista is good. But what they didn’t show was the day-to-day usage of Vista, like accidentally installing an XP printer driver and not being able to print. Sure, we like Vista just fine, but this demographic that Microsoft has in its video would be just the kind to not really be tech savvy enough to fix the aforementioned printer problem.

Cyril Kowaliski believes that the numbers don’t add up:

Interestingly, many of the users in the videos seem to be aged over 30 and not exceedingly computer-literate. Perhaps that’s because Microsoft had a harder time fooling younger subjects: in one of the videos, a 20-something respondent comments, “I don’t know, there’s something fishy about this… ‘Cause if it was a new OS, it’d look a hell of a lot different in my opinion. I’m getting the feeling here that this is Vista.”

Paul Miller had to make mends with Engadget’s readership after appearing a bit biased:

We’re hearing you guys loud and clear in comments. We’ll admit, we hate senseless Microsoft / Vista bashing just as much as the next guy, and that’s not what this is about. The problem here is Microsoft basically filmed itself an infomercial (or “pulled a Pizza Hut,” as pointed out in comments) and is passing it off as some interesting experiment into FUD. If these users had been sent home for a week or so with a Vista machine — or better yet, a copy of Vista to install themselves — that’d be a whole different story, but they weren’t. There was no scientific method in play, no control experiment, nothing. They were shown a 10 minute demo. That’s it.

What I’m Saying

Do you remember those Burger King commercials where they took away the Whopper? How about the Tuscani pasta at Pizza Hut commercial? Perhaps you can recall those countless commercials where one brand of toilet paper is stronger than the other? Then again, maybe you’ve seen those commercials where people have lost a ton of weight with a single pill?

It is all the same! All forms of advertising serve the same purpose, so why should Microsoft be so heavily criticized for their efforts to promote Windows Vista?

Now, it is clearly obvious that some of these people had no idea what they are talking about. Some of the people in the commercials seemed completely legitimate, and others, not so much. However, it is to be expected from advertising methods of this kind. Therefore, I’m not going to knock Microsoft for what the people said.

If anything, I will criticize the lack of creativity and humor that these commercials have. When you experience one of the Apple’s “Get a Mac” advertisements, they rarely take the reality so seriously. They make fun of the situations that Microsoft seems to put themselves in. Many of the commercials are hilarious to me—I understand that quite a few of them are over the top, but they are, for the most part, true. It is primarily focused on irony, but it is well done.

Microsoft, on the other hand, should have made a better effort at incorporating humorous elements into these commercials. Some of the episodes are just too serious for my tastes. They are not really effective, in my opinion, because it has been done before. This is something you would expect to see on a commercial.

It is widely known throughout the marketing industry that humor works; I’m just shocked Microsoft didn’t make efforts to focus on this like Apple has.

The “Mojave Experiment” will probably prove to be a partial success. I don’t think it has any chance in convincing a respectable number Mac users to switch over to Windows Vista, but I think that XP users will be interested in the potential that Vista has. Microsoft should have focused on the security benefits in particular.

In the end though, Microsoft should not be surprised to see a majority of bloggers pouncing all over this attempt to market Windows. It wasn’t innovative, and, if anything, it was a mediocre attempt. Chances are high that it will be long forgotten within the next month or two.

Regardless, I can only hope Microsoft hasn’t put as much emphasis on seriousness in their $300 million Windows Vista marketing endeavors. Humor is widely embraced nowadays, and I want Microsoft to really entertain viewers with their advertising campaigns. The company should be talking to someone like Paul Thurrott, who excellently points out these types of incorrect perceptions. I want Microsoft to make these perceptions seem utterly ridiculous. I’m sure it can be done, but we will have to wait to see how Microsoft handles this complex task.

Just because a product has a substantial user base, it doesn’t mean that the product is a success. It would be like comparing a Ford to a Ferrari. Ford, obviously, has more customers, but Ferrari is a world class brand. Instead, it is potential we should be looking for: more specifically, potential growth is what I am referring to. Apple’s products gleam and glimmer with it.

We live in a critical time where Apple has an advantage over Microsoft in growth potential. This comes during a time where users are realizing that it is not incredibly flashy graphics nor complete control that they desire, but instead, they desire something that works without having to deal with drivers, updates, incompatibility, and security. Both Mac and Windows operating systems offer this, but Mac OS X gets it done with a lesser hands-on approach.

All of this adds up to a user base that has become interested in a Mac computer. Numbers don’t lie—people are buying Mac computers and notebooks. These people come to the Mac operating system realizing that they might not be able to run their favorite applications on their Mac, but this is where Apple developers have been provided with wonderful opportunities.

Mac OS X

Does software created for the Mac OS stand a better chance of being recognized and profitable than an equivalent on the Windows platform? A few years ago, I would have had to think long and hard about my answer, but now I can confidently say that software developed for Mac OS X does indeed stand a better chance. Instantly, you are thinking that this can’t possibly be true—after all, more Windows users means more money to be made from Windows software, right? Well, times have changed.

I am not a developer by trade, but I do understand the concepts behind software development and sales marketing techniques. If everyone reading this article entertains some simple logic, you all will understand why I believe that the Mac operating system is a more profitable environment for new and experienced developers to migrate to.

Let’s say I wanted to develop a recipe application—this application will allow users to store, print, share, manage, upload, and sync recipes. Let’s also assume that there are around 100 various applications of this type available on for Windows XP and Windows Vista. If the Mac OS has significantly less competition, this means there is more potential to become the best in breed.[1. There might actually be more or less alternatives available on Windows, but I believe it is safe to assume that it is a significantly higher number than what is available on Mac OS X. I found only around 9 general purpose recipe applications on the official Apple software download site, and while there is sure to be more available on the Internet, I think it is a fair representation of the quality recipe applications available for both operating systems.] This could potentially result in more sales.

In essence, less competition equals more profit potential. It is all about supply and demand. Demand, right now, is high for software on the Mac OS, but supply is struggling to keep up. As a result, there are great opportunities awaiting for software developers. However, these advantages are quickly diminishing.

Quite a few developers are already ahead of the game. Projects are constantly being ported and developed for the Mac operating system. Truth be told, it is only a matter of time before we are all overloaded with applications on the Mac platform. When that happens, the advantage will—clearly—be lost.

To put this simply, it is time for developers to get on the ball before all the great ideas are taken advantage of. There are many applications on the Mac that still are not up to par nor available like, for example, feed reading applications, financial trading applications, graphic manipulation applications, and more. Some of those categories have software solutions, but there is much room for improvement.

In the end, the Mac operating system will benefit, Mac developers will benefit, end users will benefit, and Apple will benefit. There is only one remaining question: which Mac developers will benefit from Mac OS X’s growth? Plenty have already done so, but there is still room left.

iPhone and iPod Touch

Now, up until this point, I decided to leave the iPhone and iPod Touch out of consideration—I wasn’t even going to include them in this article—but now I will throw these two Apple products into the mix, especially when considering the recent release of the iPhone and iPod Touch version 2.0 software.

The iPhone and iPod Touch—almost overnight—have become the hottest platforms to develop for. Application developers have previously been given amazing platforms to develop for (e.g. Facebook), but the iPhone and iPod Touch are both in a league of their own.

Going back to the theory of less competition equaling more potential profits, developers for these two platforms have an advantage. What makes the iPhone and iPod Touch unique is that the applications developed for these platforms will likely be with the user throughout the day. If developers can create that must-have application, many people will be handing over the money for the opportunity to use that application.

Another great thing about the iPhone, iPod Touch is that chances are relatively high that the developer’s software will not be pirated. Most software will be sold through the iTunes store, and this means that a safe and secure transaction will take place. Developers get paid 70 percent of the revenue they generate through sales, but there are ways to integrate web-based services to generate revenue as well (e.g. users can store up to 2 GB of data with the Evernote service—which has a free iPhone application—but after that, users must pay extra for more storage. The developers indirectly benefit from the iPhone application.)

We are seeing a trend where laptops are shrinking in size while cell phones increase in functionality. I am of the opinion that, one day in the future, we will eventually have a merging of these two vastly different products. The iPhone is dangerously close to making this trend a reality, but its lack of a high quality input interface leads me to be hesitant to declare the iPhone as anything more than an amazing smart-phone. However, developers are still be thrilled to develop for it.

Final Thoughts

To be honest, there is absolutely nothing wrong with developing for Windows. While Windows Vista might have been a huge disappointment to some—including me—Microsoft has quickly patched up their larger mistakes. It is a relatively stable platform to develop for. But people must acknowledge that the market is too thick for a small-time developer to make a living from developing for Windows. Larger development studios have nothing to worry about, but for all the independent developers out there, Mac OS X, iPhone, and iPod Touch provide opportunities.

The End of Platform Dependence

Xcode offers an impressive integrated development environment, for free—this leaves few to no excuses left for applications being platform dependent.[2. If you take a look at how so many popular video games are available on all the various console platforms—Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, Wii—why can't this concept be applied to software development?] Why do developers deny themselves of revenue? It is just an odd thing to do nowadays.

The amount of platform dependent applications will decrease drastically within the next few years. Commercial and professional developers who already develop for the Windows and Linux operating systems should consider porting their projects over to Mac OS X as well. Honestly now, it makes little sense to remain exclusive to any operating system.

If developers are looking to monetize software, the Mac operating system is one of the best places to be. Recent converts—like me—are looking for great applications that are missed from the Windows platform.

Developers, package up some kick-ass applications, make them operate on multiple platforms, and make some money in the process.

In April of 2008, Twhirl’s developers had aspirations to implement FriendFeed support within the client. Now a Seesmic owned product, Twhirl is currently one of the best FriendFeed clients available today, but it is far from perfect. It’s the small things that are holding the client back from reaching its full potential. However, I will use it as a comparison for the rest of this article.

I am constantly questioning if an amazing—dare I say ultimate—FriendFeed client could propel the FriendFeed service to fame. Third-party developers have done this with Twitter, and I believe it could be done again with FriendFeed.

However, if we are to be blessed with such a great FriendFeed client, it will require a few kick-ass features.

The Ultimate Features

Interface

First and foremost, the ultimate FriendFeed client should have a simple and intuitive interface design. Emphasis should be on displaying information that a user wants to see. Having all the bells and whistles is nice, but I want a client that will give me only the relevant information. It has to be, especially when considering how much information FriendFeed can throw around. A cluttered experience—which is exactly what Twhirl can be at times—will not cut it. I am looking at Twhirl right now, and the scroll bar on my FriendFeed account is very small. It is actually difficult to move up and down the Twhirl client at this point. A page or two could have been nice, or perhaps having the client expand to older entries when you reach the end of the content, similar to Google Reader. Of course, I could simply hit the clear button, but then I might miss important information from one of my friends that I have not read yet.

The interface should allow users to properly and intuitively manage, display, and sort comments. This comment functionality is what put FriendFeed in a league of its own.[2. Ironically enough, Jaiku was, from my knowledge, the first service of its kind to provide a comment thread system (a single level, like FriendFeed) for individual entries.] Currently, the methods used to navigate comments are somewhat disappointing. For example, Twhirl displays comments in a reverse chronological order while the FriendFeed site displays them in chronological order—that makes little to no sense whatsoever. However, I do like how Twhirl hides excess comments from the client, which, of course, can be expanded to view the whole picture. Hopefully this would be a feature in the ultimate FriendFeed client.

Navigation

Navigation is also a prevalent problem because of the amount of information users must sort through. Right now, it is a pain in the ass to catch up with what I have missed. Too many clicks, too much scrolling, too many clicks again, and then a lot more scrolling thereafter. It is fairly repetitive and annoying. FriendFeed’s complexity shows its true colors in these regards.[3. At the time of this writing, I am friends with 46 people on Twitter and 22 people on FriendFeed. I have no issues with using Twitter. I must admit that FriendFeed presents me with at least 10 times more information, but it shouldn't require as much of an effort to keep up the the activity.]

Perhaps third-party developers should attempt to integrate more tabs and/or filters within a FriendFeed client. Why not have tabs or filters for each of the following: blogging activity, news activity, social networking activity, multimedia activity, shopping activity, comment activity, and more. With this in place, users could easily find relevant information without having to sort through the vast amounts of activity generated by other actions. These tabs or filters could—optionally—bypass the “hide” functionality so that users could still see activity within the various categories without cluttering up their “friends” tab as well.[1. I do realize that most of the current FriendFeed clients have ways to activate filters by the types of content like blog posts, Twitter posts, etc., but there are too many related issues with most of these clients to point that out as a nice feature. The ability to sort and filter through content is what needs to be focused on.]

Ease of Use

Unfortunately, people, in general, are dumb. Okay, so, everybody isn’t dumb, but for the most part, many people lack common sense.[4. This leads me to believe that most people are—well, what else?—dumb. Thankfully, my readers are brilliant.] They see something like Twitter or FriendFeed and believe it is pointless, without even giving it a chance. Well, for those who thought Twitter was bad enough, those very same people are going to flip once they see FriendFeed taking over. Of course, many of these same people have never bothered with a third-party client made for these types of services, which is where Twitter really shines, but these people can’t be ignored. A company will need to reach out to these people.

I don’t have any particular suggestions for the ease-of-use department, but I would say that a client that has a built-in mini-tutorial would help a lot of users who have never experienced a social networking service like FriendFeed or Twitter before.

Functionality

Most importantly, the ultimate FriendFeed client will need to have some excellent functionality in order to beat the competition.

One of the most useful features of FriendFeed is the “hide” function. With it, users can easily ignore content. Unfortunately, this feature is only accessible on FriendFeed’s web interface. Obviously, that will have to change. The ultimate FriendFeed client can resolve this issue by allowing users to easily hide any type of content created by any person with a single click. Additionally, the ability to modify the settings of the hide function is also, in my opinion, a requirement to make tat functionality truly useful.

Commenting, by far, is one of the best features of the FriendFeed service. With that in mind, the ultimate FriendFeed client needs to put emphasis on easily creating, editing, and reading these comments. This is where some crazy ideas could really make a difference. Simple things like highlighting a friend’s comment is very useful. Again, it is the small things that can make a big difference.

Finally, the person or people who decide to make the ultimate FriendFeed client should find ways to extend FriendFeed’s uses. Honestly now, who knew that Twitter was going to be a popular service to track packages and calculate MPG rates? Who knew that it would turn the everyday person into a reporter? Who knew that it would be one of the most dominant marketing tools today? Who knew that it would change the world? FriendFeed’s third-party developers should apply all this knowledge to their creations.

If a third-party developer could find ways to implement some, if not all, of the aforementioned features, that developer will have fair advantage over the competition. I believe these to be some great ways to improve a user’s experiences with FriendFeed.

If the people who run FriendFeed are smart, they will quickly make even more efforts towards providing third-party developers with all the tools and knowledge they need to create spectacular applications for the service. It would be a smart business move.

A Question of Time

When will we have this ultimate FriendFeed client? Well, for FriendFeed’s sake, I hope it will be soon. During the golden age of internet applications and services, one days something is hot, and the next day it is not. The FriendFeed service has an unlimited growth potential, but if it is going to overtake Twitter’s dominance, third-party developers need to push the limits of the FriendFeed API right now.

The primary reason for companies moving to a subscription-based model is for the increased control of their products. They want this for several reasons: the potential to thwart piracy efforts (which is not likely to happen), the knowledge of how many users are using the company’s products, the ability to offer simpler pricing arrangements, and the fortune of having a continuous revenue stream.

The Good & the Bad

There are benefits for the consumers and companies, but at the same time, there are various things that could go astray. It is almost impossible to make this happen unless a service is developed to handle these subscriptions (more on that later). One must question why we don’t have a system like this in place already, but, then again, we have only been blessed with the iPhone around a year ago. I guess these things take time.

The good points of subscription-based models:

• Subscription-based pricing models can be convenient if done right. For example, imagine not having to type in your address, phone number, and credit card number every time you want to purchase something. This could become a reality if a service was created to assist with managing and paying subscriptions. Also, it would be very nice to have one bill for all my subscriptions.
• A serious problem today is that some developers are not being compensated for their hard work. Piracy has become quite easy for consumers to take part in, and this has harmed many of the companies’ and individuals’ bottom lines.[3. I will not entertain the idea of deciding the morality of whether or not a person would or wouldn't have purchased the software in question. If a person illegally used a full product without paying, they did cost that company money. Others paid for the same right. Now, I am one of those guys who would cheer on The Pirate Bay for taking on the governments, but I am not ignorant to the fact that piracy does impact the bottom line. If I was a broke software developer, I'd be pretty pissed off if I saw my software on The Pirate Bay.]
• Consumers could potentially be more secure by using a subscription management service. When you think about it, when you want to purchase something online—which in many instances this material will come from companies you never heard about and places you never heard of before—you usually pay with your credit card. I have done this countless times over the years, and I always question what happens with my data—is it really secure? Well, if a company could securely interact with a service that manages my subscriptions for me, this transaction could be made safer.
• If you are subscribing to a service, chances are high that you will be able to receive technical support. Today, you tend to purchase products from a company at full price. The problem is that many of these companies seem to forget that their products sometimes have issues or require assistance by its users. But if you were subscribing to a product, those companies might be more inclined to provide assistance so they won’t lose you as a customer.
• There is a simple concept of only paying for what you use. This could be applied to a subscription-based model. If a user was paying on a monthly basis—which is why many companies will prefer yearly payment plans—he or she could simply stop paying and end their service. This would be the pay-for-only-what-you-use concept in its magnificent glory.

The bad points of subscription-based models:

• A huge problem that might arise with subscription-based pricing models is that there could be too many subscriptions to manage. People already have bills that they pay on a monthly basis, so why would they want to add more monthly payments? I only subscribe to a handful of services, but, even now, I still feel somewhat overwhelmed by it all. (See “Subscription Management” below.)
• Subscriptions could begin to add up. Let’s say you had to pay $5 a month to play a game like, for example, GTA IV. Doesn’t seem that expensive, right? However, what happens when you also want to play Call of Duty 4, GRID, Madden NFL ‘09, Civilization IV, and Spore? Well, your $5 per month bill is now a $30 per month bill. Now, for simplicity’s sake, this is assuming that the price wouldn’t go lower with time (which it probably would), but even so, it could still add up to the same amount you might pay on a yearly basis. If the price did decrease with time, I could see it becoming better value, but who knows? Maybe developers could add additional content on a somewhat regular basis to keep the price up.
• Software activation is already a pain these days, but could you imagine having to go through a more difficult process if a software was required to connect to the internet to check for a subscription status? Obviously, the software would need to do this on a daily, weekly, monthly, or, at least, yearly basis in order to see if the user is still paying for the software in question. What happens when your internet access is nowhere to be found while on that exotic trip to Africa—that important application you needed to use can no longer be accessed. Again, what happens then?
• Finally, I must mention that these changes are going to happen whether or not we want them to, but I still question if all this is really necessary. Must we deal with subscriptions in the future? Is it only the matter of businesses and developers having more control over their products?

Subscription Management

When a majority of companies decide to go the subscription-based route (which will happen—it is only a question of time), what consumers will need is a way to manage all these subscriptions. It is quite difficult to imagine a person having to pay bills from 10, 20, 40, or more software companies with other existing bills. It can’t work that way. Subscriptions need to be combined into one bill for the sake of sanity.

What consumers need is a service which will easily allow you to add, remove, modify, combine, and separate subscriptions. This service should, ideally, bill you once per month at a time you decide is convenient for you.

The question of how to handle someone who can’t afford to pay for these subscriptions will arise. Well, it’s simple really, you pre-pay for the services! If you can’t pay, you don’t have access to a particular item. On the flip-side, if you decide to cancel your subscription before the end of the month, you should be compensated for the time you didn’t use.

I am very confident that a handful of companies will take on this effort. As a matter of fact, I have a good idea of which companies would dare to attempt this feat on such a massive scale: Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, PayPal, and Google. Apple and PayPal are the two companies that stand out above the rest. Apple is going to become familiar with the concept of subscription-based services after developers begin releasing software on the iPhone. PayPal, on the other hand, would only need to create a dedicated section of their site to handle subscriptions—software developers could add a button on their site or integrate this payment method directly into their software.[1. I must say that I am not the biggest fan of the way PayPal does business. Since I am compensated through PayPal with all of my work, I feel like I'm constantly being ripped off. It costs no money to send and receive a check, so why should it cost money to receive money electronically? It makes little sense from a consumer's standpoint. A service like this can't be costly to the user or publisher.]

What’s The Point?

What I am saying is that subscription-based pricing models can be a viable option if we are given the tools and services to properly manage these subscriptions. If we are left without these tools and services, the benefits to the companies will remain, but the frustration to the consumers will be prevalent.

I leave you with one question of what you would do if you owned a software development company that is profitable but losing a significant amount of revenue due to piracy. The company I want you to imagine owning is, non-other than, Adobe. If you moved your software to subscription-based options entirely, you could tightly control the software and potentially thwart some piracy efforts. Revenues, most likely, would skyrocket. However many who have pirated your products for years might consider switching to alternatives—doors might open for other companies to take advantage of such a decision. What do you do?