Microsoft: Hole exploit endangers all IE versions

Need I say more?

Matt Asay has an interesting little article on news.com about how open source drives innovation and shortens the effective “patent monopoly” period for proprietary software.  While I completely agree with most of what he says, I have just a couple of small caveats.  Yes, innovation is usually a good thing, but it can lead to multiple standards (oxymoron, I know), fractured development/user communities, and increased upgrade costs for licensed users.

Competetion can obviously lead to innovation and provide useful features and a general improvement in user experience.  And yes, I think the consumer can be the winner in such scenarios.  But it also means that licensed users of proprietary software could be on a continual upgrade treadmill, forced to keep up with the latest updates to the software they already paid for.  What’s more, software updates often bring changes to file formats, dividing users even further into open source vs proprietary camps, as well as old version vs new version camps.  And let’s not even get into the increased security concerns with updates and features that are rushed to production in order to meet deadlines.

So what’s the answer?  Moderation…cooperation…cohabitation…probably at least one other kind of -ation I can’t think of right now.  There’s got to be a happy medium for everyone involved.  Users need to be able to make the most of the software they pay for without being forced to upgrade before they need or want to.  Vendors need to figure out there are ways to make money from software without resorting to the perpetual upgrade path.  Better yet, vendors could make use of dual-licensing strategies and allow an open source development community to drive innovation into the company’s non-free software.  Finally, the open source community needs to realize that just because they can produce a free alternative to a specific piece of software, that doesn’t mean they have to.  Choice for the sake of freedom is a good thing…choice for the sake of division isn’t.

There is definitely still a place for proprietary software, just like there’s a place for open source alternatives.  It’ll be nice when we find the balance between the two that’s so desperately needed by users and vendors alike.

The number of choices we now have for purchasing music online is encouraging.  I still buy CDs at times, but I buy most of my music at amazon.com because they cost the same as iTunes but they sell you an unrestricted MP3 file which I can put on my network and multiple iPods or other MP3 players.  I don’t share my purchased music with others, and I don’t listen to music I didn’t purchase…I just like to have the freedom to do what I want with my music.  But while iTunes doesn’t give me that, I’m not saying it shouldn’t exist.  You see, choice is a good thing, and (usually) the more choices you have, the better.  Stephan Jenkins, the lead singer for the band Third Eye Blind, finally got around to saying that, but not before he really kinda confused the whole thing.

According to this news.com story, Jenkins was the keynote speaker at the SanFran MusicTech Summit (what, you’ve never heard of the SFMTS?) where he talked about his feelings for releasing singles, apparently through iTunes and other online music download services.  He said things like “I don’t think (the album) is necessary or useful,” and “The album is an arbitrary concept. It’s not something that has to exist.”  So let’s see if I understand…Stephan doesn’t like albums and thinks today’s single-download-centric music marketing scene is a good thing.  OK, fine.  I happen to disagree, but I’m OK with him feeling that way.

Well, then Stephan apparently got a lot of flak from other folks who disagree with him and he felt the need to respond in an email mea culpa of sorts.  To start off, he addresses a critic who apparently heard him speak at the SFMTS.  “…to the person putting me down because I have a speech impediment…you are just mean.  I bet you watch Fox News!”  Oh Stephen, you don’t have to stoop to some idiot’s level…now you’re mean too!  Anyway, the rest of his email is all about how he grew up listening to albums and how he believes the album is the “most vital and compelling art form.”  Huh?  Now I’m confused.

Eventually, Stephan gets to a position I can agree with.  There’s room for both single-centric and album-centric marketing in the music industry.  Amen, brother…can’t we all just get along?  I also understand where Stephan is coming from when he says a band’s website can be their album, providing lyrics, liner notes, etc for conusumers who have presumably bought individual songs off of iTunes, Amazon, etc.  However, I like the fact that some artists continue to package a group of related (either by theme or time) songs together into one artistic offering.  Unlike Stephan, I just don’t think a website — which can and really should change on a regular basis — can offer the kind of stability I’m looking for when, years from now, I get ready to listen to a CD and want to hear the songs in the order the artist intended.  So, like the author of the CNet article (and apparently like Stephan himself) I like the choice of buying a single when I want/need to or buying an entire album when I want to.  Give me choice or give me silence!

Just listened to the followup to the “Giant Pool of Money” episode of This American Life, called “Another Frightening Show About the Economy.”  Wow.  Really worth 2 hours of your time to listen to these 2 shows.  The guys from NPR do (I think) a really good job of explaining how we got into the economic mess that required the $700 Billion Bailout.  And don’t get the impression from the title of this blog — which is a direct quote from the show — that they necessarily conclude that the bailout is the wrong thing to do.  They were just listing some of the problems with the bailout plan, comparing and contrasting strengths and weaknesses of different ways of handling it.

Anyway, good job Ira, Adam, and Alex.  Keep up the good work.  The more we know and understand, the more likely we can help avoid something like this in the future.

I’ve thought about starting a net radio station for several years now.  The one thing that’s always scared me away from it (well, aside from the work involved) is the ridiculously high royalties imposed on streaming music back when congress caved to the recording and radio industries and retroactively increased the fees net broadcasters are required to pay.  Lots and lots of small net radio stations were forced off the air, and even bigger ones say they’ll likely be forced to shut down under these new rates.  Now, it seems there may be some light at the end of the tunnel.

Pandora, a really cool online radio…what is it, a station? a service? an experiment?  Anyway, Pandora has been at the forefront of the effort to get congress to reconsider and allow net broadcasters to renegotiate royalty rates directly with the recording industry.  A bill has passed the House unanimously, and is now being voted on by the Senate.  The passage of this bill could keep net radio alive, and it might just be the little jab in the backside I need to put something together and start one up myself.

No, that’s not a threat…nor is it a promise…just an observation.

UPDATE: 30-Sep-2008
Looks like the bill passed both houses and is headed for the President’s desk for signing.  We’ll see if this turns into something positive for net broadcasters, maybe even me one of these days.