How do you follow an amazingly successful article about celebrity gossip? Yesterday's entry scored exactly zero pieces of hate mail.
That means that:
1. I did something wrong
2. No one reads anything I write
3. Everyone agrees with everything I said
Right now I'm leaning towards #3.
So to follow that, I will now attempt to answer some of the main questions I remember hearing when people used to talk to me.
Q: What is sex for?
A: Scientists haven't yet found a use for sex. It doesn't seem to do anything positive. It has been known to spread disease--but only among the gay, poor, and minority populations. It causes problems within relationships, and sometimes hurts (it's bad to like it if it hurts).
As far as anyone can tell, it's just bad. Like a drug.
Q: Who should have sex?
A: See above. Essentially no one. But if you're white, Christian, and middle to upper class, it's okay to have it sometimes. Just as long as you don't enjoy it. Again, it's like a drug. And drugs are dangerous except for people who know how to use them. If you don't fit the criteria, the chances are that you don't know how to use this drug in a safe, effective manner.
Q: But if there's such a thing as effective, that implies that it does something, doesn't it?
A: Occasionally, and I mean very occasionally, it makes a magical bird appear with a small animal that shits and pukes all over everything, cries a lot, is very needy, and refuses to clean up after itself for 18 years, at which point, it leaves you scratching your head going, "WTF?"
Q: That sounds terrible!
A; That's not a question.
But yes. It does sound terrible. It may not even be true.
Q: So if it serves no purpose and there's nothing good about it . . . why do I want to have it so much?
A: Because you are probably evil.
Q: But why am I so well equipped for it if I'm not supposed to have it?
A: I'm equipped to rape baby seals. Does that mean I should?
Q: What the fuck . . . ?
A: That's rhetorical. Next question.
Q: How come no one ever told me any of this?
A: Because talking about sex is the gateway drug that leads to actually having sex. It's the same with drugs. If you talk about them, it means you are curious about them and want them. And wanting something is the first step to getting it.
That's why no one should ever talk about sex.
Q: But I thought that talking about drugs, like with your kids, was supposed to help prevent them from getting on drugs to begin with?
A: That's a myth. Just one more government lie. Talking about drugs makes the kids interested in the drugs. You see, if no one knows about drugs, no one wants the drugs. That's how you solve the drug problem in this country. Eliminate demand by eliminating awareness. It's simple economics.
The same concept applies to sex. If you don't know about it, you won't want to have it.
Q: But I already know about sex. Isn't that why we're having this Q/A?
A: If you know about sex, you're a dirty whore.
Q: Does that mean you're a dirty whore?
A: No. It does not.
Q: Okay, let's move on. What about kinky sex that doesn't involve the vagina?
A: The v-word is not appropriate for this conversation, you cunt.
Q: . . . .
A: If you insist, I'll make it clear. Anal sex is bad because it hurts people. Oral sex is bad because you don't know where the other person's mind has been, and you can't go around putting your junk that close to a dirty mind. That's where the diseases come from.
But, if you're not married to the person, it's better to do either than to have full-on sex because you can't get a disease from someone you're not married to. Unless you pound her in the snatch.
Q: So are you saying that until I get married, I should never do anything but anal and oral?
A: Yes. To do the real thing would be evil. But the mere fact that you are thinking these things makes you evil already. So you might as well just hand it out for free (or 10 bucks a creampie if you're feeling entrepreneurial) because you aren't worth anything anyway.
Q: What's your definition of evil?
A: Anything that's different from what I think.
Q: Are you aware that cultural norms have been very different at different times in history, and that sexual practices evolve over time, kind of like people do?
A: All the people from those perverted cultures are dead. Probably because they were perverted.
Q: Could they maybe just be dead because they got old and died?
A: No. That doesn't happen to pure people.
Q: Are you insane?
A: No. I am perfectly representative of normal people all over the world. And if you disagree with me, I will kill you like any good red-blooded American would. Don't fuck with Jesus.
Q: So you're a Christian?
A: Isn't everyone?
Q: Rhetorical. Next Answer.
A: Can you rephrase that in the form of a question?
Q: No. Last answer: Fuck you.
A: Okay, but I'm not married to you, so it will have to be in the ass.
Q:
A: And next caller, you're on the air! (where's my oxycontin?)
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
In the Beginning
There was nothing but RIdiculous, the invisible aluminum squirrel. Being a squirrel, Ridiculous had a disproportionately large nutsack, and Ridiculous desired a mate.
But since there was nothing, Ridiculous imagined an enormous acorn because food is usually the first thing a guy thinks about when there's no one around to have sex with. Well food and porn. But Ridiculous had not yet invented porn, so food was the priority.
And lo, the acorn appeared.
And Ridiculous ate it.
And he was fed.
-Book of Squirrel
But since there was nothing, Ridiculous imagined an enormous acorn because food is usually the first thing a guy thinks about when there's no one around to have sex with. Well food and porn. But Ridiculous had not yet invented porn, so food was the priority.
And lo, the acorn appeared.
And Ridiculous ate it.
And he was fed.
-Book of Squirrel
Monday, June 22, 2009
I think it's time to try my hand
at being a gossip columnist. At first blush you might think this is difficult because I live in the middle of nowhere in Minnesota, and I have never met anyone who even comes close to celebrity status.
But I see these things as positive. Having no actual knowledge of anything that's happening in the lives of real people, I am simply that much more free to make shit up.
So today's top story: Celebrity Skanks are Wild Women Except when they're Not.
The real reason that every cute little starlet in Hollywood ends up a drunk, coke-addled, cockslut has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that our society feeds on this type of behavior, their parents are sociopathic attention-hounds, or that they have too much money to spend in 3 lifetimes and drugs and booze are a good way of getting rid of any excess cash that might be floating around.
No. It has nothing to do with any of that. The real reason this happens is that as soon as a young attractive girl becomes world-famous for being essentially nothing but young and attractive, she is immediately kidnapped by 32.7 space aliens dressed as Elvis (young Elvis, not fat old gross Elvis) and force-fed enough cocaine to addict the entire state of Oregon, taught how to fuck like a bunny, and given a lobotomo-facial procedure that permanently warps her perception of reality in such a way that she is conditioned to believe that anyone at all gives 2 flying razorfucks about her.
Wait. That can't be true. That's what you're thinking. I can tell even from all the way over here. And you may have a point. Maybe that doesn't happen at all. Maybe what happens is that every time a young attractive girl shows up in Hollywood that some old guy thinks he can make a buck off of, we--all of us, yes you too--are all immediately kidnapped by 32.7 space aliens dressed as Elvis (young Elvis, not fat old gross Elvis) and force-fed enough cocaine to addict the entire state of Oregon, taught how to fuck like a bunny, and given a lobotomo-facial procedure that permanently warps our perception of reality in such a way that we are conditioned to believe that anyone at all gives 2 flying razorfucks about her.
These people pretty much suck at everything, and we love them for it. They are the drugs that we inject to make us feel a little better about our miserable little lives, and when we're done, using them like the whores they love to be, we litter the streets with their used up little husks and then we feel even better because we're not trashy like that.
That's about the same as eating a donut and feeling good about not being the box it came in. Or fucking your boss for 20 bucks and feeling good about not being the used condom that's left over. It doesn't make any sense at all, but hey, when your a horrible, miserable, pathetic, worthless human being any little thing you can think to make yourself feel better will do, right?
Don't get me wrong. I don't want you to walk away from this and think I'm showing any sympathy for people like Lindsey Lohan, Paris Hilton, Miley Cyrus or even Courtney Love. No. No sympathy at all. They decided to be whores, and that's their choice. But part of being a whore is getting fucked a lot. That's what they pay you for.
I don't even really have a problem with prostitution. It's a free market. At least, it should be. No. My problem is that we've been led to think that these people at some point actually had any value at all, other than providing us with our little fix, our mental orgasm that we have anytime any stupid hot chick does anything stupid or hot.
They are not the ones with serious problems; we are. The guy who gets a 10$ hand job isn't the one with the problem; the girl (or what the hell, maybe it's a guy) giving it to him isn't the one with the problem. The one with the problem is the psycho freak jacking off watching the hand job telling them both that they have serious problems.
We're that psycho-freak.
And that's today's celebrity gossip.
But I see these things as positive. Having no actual knowledge of anything that's happening in the lives of real people, I am simply that much more free to make shit up.
So today's top story: Celebrity Skanks are Wild Women Except when they're Not.
The real reason that every cute little starlet in Hollywood ends up a drunk, coke-addled, cockslut has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that our society feeds on this type of behavior, their parents are sociopathic attention-hounds, or that they have too much money to spend in 3 lifetimes and drugs and booze are a good way of getting rid of any excess cash that might be floating around.
No. It has nothing to do with any of that. The real reason this happens is that as soon as a young attractive girl becomes world-famous for being essentially nothing but young and attractive, she is immediately kidnapped by 32.7 space aliens dressed as Elvis (young Elvis, not fat old gross Elvis) and force-fed enough cocaine to addict the entire state of Oregon, taught how to fuck like a bunny, and given a lobotomo-facial procedure that permanently warps her perception of reality in such a way that she is conditioned to believe that anyone at all gives 2 flying razorfucks about her.
Wait. That can't be true. That's what you're thinking. I can tell even from all the way over here. And you may have a point. Maybe that doesn't happen at all. Maybe what happens is that every time a young attractive girl shows up in Hollywood that some old guy thinks he can make a buck off of, we--all of us, yes you too--are all immediately kidnapped by 32.7 space aliens dressed as Elvis (young Elvis, not fat old gross Elvis) and force-fed enough cocaine to addict the entire state of Oregon, taught how to fuck like a bunny, and given a lobotomo-facial procedure that permanently warps our perception of reality in such a way that we are conditioned to believe that anyone at all gives 2 flying razorfucks about her.
These people pretty much suck at everything, and we love them for it. They are the drugs that we inject to make us feel a little better about our miserable little lives, and when we're done, using them like the whores they love to be, we litter the streets with their used up little husks and then we feel even better because we're not trashy like that.
That's about the same as eating a donut and feeling good about not being the box it came in. Or fucking your boss for 20 bucks and feeling good about not being the used condom that's left over. It doesn't make any sense at all, but hey, when your a horrible, miserable, pathetic, worthless human being any little thing you can think to make yourself feel better will do, right?
Don't get me wrong. I don't want you to walk away from this and think I'm showing any sympathy for people like Lindsey Lohan, Paris Hilton, Miley Cyrus or even Courtney Love. No. No sympathy at all. They decided to be whores, and that's their choice. But part of being a whore is getting fucked a lot. That's what they pay you for.
I don't even really have a problem with prostitution. It's a free market. At least, it should be. No. My problem is that we've been led to think that these people at some point actually had any value at all, other than providing us with our little fix, our mental orgasm that we have anytime any stupid hot chick does anything stupid or hot.
They are not the ones with serious problems; we are. The guy who gets a 10$ hand job isn't the one with the problem; the girl (or what the hell, maybe it's a guy) giving it to him isn't the one with the problem. The one with the problem is the psycho freak jacking off watching the hand job telling them both that they have serious problems.
We're that psycho-freak.
And that's today's celebrity gossip.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Is Steve Jobs a dickhead?
He had a liver transplant and failed to tell the world about it. It this a cover-up? Is Apple trying to hide the facts from shareholders?
No. Steve Jobs is not a dickhead. And Apple is not irresponsible.
Steve Jobs just sucks at blogging. As far as I know the guy doesn't even have a blog. Maybe he does. But if he does, he sucks at marketing it. Every once in a while he responds to an outraged switcher with a curt email that basically says, "Calm the fuck down, bitch."
If he wants to be successful in life, he's got to learn how to market himself. Maybe he should've stayed in school. Then he would be cool. But look at him now. He dropped out of college and what's happened to him? He got a freakish protein imbalance and had to have a liver transplant.
But no. He had to go off and do things his own way. My invisible aluminum squirrel told me that the reason he was fired from Apple to begin with is because he didn't finish school. How can you have great ideas if you can't finish what you start?
Oh, also, there's this: shareholders don't have any right to personal medical information. Period. End of story. I'll even argue this: releasing personal information about the state of Jobs' health would be detrimental to the interests of both the company and the shareholders. It would cause the market to speculate about the future of the company while stock sharks and day-traders played hell with the company's stock price.
Whereas, if everyone keeps quiet about Mr. Jobs health, he either recovers (which is what we all hope), or he dies (which no one hopes for, unless you are a complete dickhead). In which case, the stock price falls for a day or two and then people realize that Apple will still be around for a long time.
The real reason for this discussion is that critics of Apple are convinced that the only reason anyone would ever buy a mac is because that person is completely and totally in a bromance with the RDF (reality distortion field for you n00bs out there).
I wish Mr. Jobs the best. Any major organ transplant is a huge ordeal to go through. I don't say this as a fan of Apple or Jobs or anything else but a fan of human beings overcoming difficult medical problems.
Good luck, Mr. Jobs.
No. Steve Jobs is not a dickhead. And Apple is not irresponsible.
Steve Jobs just sucks at blogging. As far as I know the guy doesn't even have a blog. Maybe he does. But if he does, he sucks at marketing it. Every once in a while he responds to an outraged switcher with a curt email that basically says, "Calm the fuck down, bitch."
If he wants to be successful in life, he's got to learn how to market himself. Maybe he should've stayed in school. Then he would be cool. But look at him now. He dropped out of college and what's happened to him? He got a freakish protein imbalance and had to have a liver transplant.
But no. He had to go off and do things his own way. My invisible aluminum squirrel told me that the reason he was fired from Apple to begin with is because he didn't finish school. How can you have great ideas if you can't finish what you start?
Oh, also, there's this: shareholders don't have any right to personal medical information. Period. End of story. I'll even argue this: releasing personal information about the state of Jobs' health would be detrimental to the interests of both the company and the shareholders. It would cause the market to speculate about the future of the company while stock sharks and day-traders played hell with the company's stock price.
Whereas, if everyone keeps quiet about Mr. Jobs health, he either recovers (which is what we all hope), or he dies (which no one hopes for, unless you are a complete dickhead). In which case, the stock price falls for a day or two and then people realize that Apple will still be around for a long time.
The real reason for this discussion is that critics of Apple are convinced that the only reason anyone would ever buy a mac is because that person is completely and totally in a bromance with the RDF (reality distortion field for you n00bs out there).
I wish Mr. Jobs the best. Any major organ transplant is a huge ordeal to go through. I don't say this as a fan of Apple or Jobs or anything else but a fan of human beings overcoming difficult medical problems.
Good luck, Mr. Jobs.
Upgraded Ridicule
If I get enough followers for my new church, I will upgrade my pet invisible aluminum squirrel to platinum.
P.S.
I taught Stephen Colbert everything he knows about Ridiculous.
P.P.S.
I've never met Stephen Colbert.
P.P.P.S.
If I ever met Stephen Colbert, he would immediately bow down and worship my squirrel. Unlike that liberal pansy-snatch, Jon Stuart.
P.S.
I taught Stephen Colbert everything he knows about Ridiculous.
P.P.S.
I've never met Stephen Colbert.
P.P.P.S.
If I ever met Stephen Colbert, he would immediately bow down and worship my squirrel. Unlike that liberal pansy-snatch, Jon Stuart.
Life in Bemidji
Northern Minnesota is a very strange place. Like much of the midwest, nothing really makes any sense. I'm originally from Texas, and my guess is that peeps from the midwest don't think we make any sense either.
After all, Texas has given the world GWB 41 and 43 (actually, we can thank the great state of Connecticut for both of them fucking transplants), Rick Fairy (brought to us by perfecthair.com--not based in TX, or reality), white guys who think they have dicks the size of black guys (brought to you by Eminem), and oil (brought to you by Saudi Arabia).
My point is that all of the stuff that the rest of the world hates about Texas was imported from foreign states. Yes, that includes the guns, and I happen to like them, but they aren't made in Texas.
It reminds me of when I lived in NYC for a while. The actual people who grew up in NYC are pretty okay, except for the crazies that live on the upper east side. All the real jerkweeds are imported.
The problem with the midwest is boredom, not imports. All the crazy, non-sensical bs is homegrown, home-fertilized, and home-brewed. (though I like the homebrew). I blame the winters here. And the boredom.
But I also blame the people. There is, in fact, internet. There is a library. There is even a University. But once people run out of things to do, they start electing batshit-crazy politicians.
Wait. Texas does that too. Never mind.
My point is no longer that the midwest is screwed up. America is pretty much one giant collective cow-tipping redneck. It's just that some of the ones in the big cities on the coasts are more neurotic than the rest of us.
After all, Texas has given the world GWB 41 and 43 (actually, we can thank the great state of Connecticut for both of them fucking transplants), Rick Fairy (brought to us by perfecthair.com--not based in TX, or reality), white guys who think they have dicks the size of black guys (brought to you by Eminem), and oil (brought to you by Saudi Arabia).
My point is that all of the stuff that the rest of the world hates about Texas was imported from foreign states. Yes, that includes the guns, and I happen to like them, but they aren't made in Texas.
It reminds me of when I lived in NYC for a while. The actual people who grew up in NYC are pretty okay, except for the crazies that live on the upper east side. All the real jerkweeds are imported.
The problem with the midwest is boredom, not imports. All the crazy, non-sensical bs is homegrown, home-fertilized, and home-brewed. (though I like the homebrew). I blame the winters here. And the boredom.
But I also blame the people. There is, in fact, internet. There is a library. There is even a University. But once people run out of things to do, they start electing batshit-crazy politicians.
Wait. Texas does that too. Never mind.
My point is no longer that the midwest is screwed up. America is pretty much one giant collective cow-tipping redneck. It's just that some of the ones in the big cities on the coasts are more neurotic than the rest of us.
Things I want to know #2
If a tree falls in the forest, does it know the sound of one hand clapping?
Daily Definition
Isomorphism: n. The most efficient word in the English language. It means, "You're a fucktard if you don't know what this word means. I'm smarter than you are, clown-rapist."
Sunday Afternoons
There is nothing in the world as lonely
As a lonesome Sunday afternoon
We keep busy with people we call family
But they are really just
A convenient distraction
That we use
To pretend that we aren’t alone
On a Sunday afternoon
I am alone, not today
But on many days named
Sunday
Oh, that was today
And I was alone
One day, all Christians will
Wear necklaces made of
Tiny guns
And Atheists will wear
Little crosses
And when we all come full
Circle, and the madness of belief
Hits us we will
Continue to ignore
What we know to be True
And stay with what we know is
False
And we will always be lonely
On Sunday afternoons
As a lonesome Sunday afternoon
We keep busy with people we call family
But they are really just
A convenient distraction
That we use
To pretend that we aren’t alone
On a Sunday afternoon
I am alone, not today
But on many days named
Sunday
Oh, that was today
And I was alone
One day, all Christians will
Wear necklaces made of
Tiny guns
And Atheists will wear
Little crosses
And when we all come full
Circle, and the madness of belief
Hits us we will
Continue to ignore
What we know to be True
And stay with what we know is
False
And we will always be lonely
On Sunday afternoons
My invisible aluminum pet squirrel named Ridiculous
Yes. I have a pet squirrel that also happens to be invisible and made of aluminum and named Ridiculous.
You should be concerned about this only because he (the squirrel) is the supreme ruler of the universe. He's like God but different. He really only cares about acorns. I'm in the process of writing his teaching down in the Book of Squirrel. Will post as revelations progress.
In the mean time, enjoy my attempts at crafting the most random thought that's ever existed anywhere ever. If I actually think I accomplish this, I will never publish it here because it will then be connected to me and this blog and therefore not be truly random.
You should be concerned about this only because he (the squirrel) is the supreme ruler of the universe. He's like God but different. He really only cares about acorns. I'm in the process of writing his teaching down in the Book of Squirrel. Will post as revelations progress.
In the mean time, enjoy my attempts at crafting the most random thought that's ever existed anywhere ever. If I actually think I accomplish this, I will never publish it here because it will then be connected to me and this blog and therefore not be truly random.
Saturday, September 08, 2007
The Economy of the iPhone, or How Apple is Going to Take Over the World Part I
I have to admit that I was really puzzled by Apple's Sept. 5 media event.
At first, I was mostly curious about Steve's decision to cut the iPhone's price by 200 bucks. So soon? So much? What? Now a 100$ credit for the whiners that bought it then but suddenly can't afford it? What the hell is going on here?
Then I was really interested in why Apple would release a product so similar, the iPod Touch. It does everything but make phone calls. Why? Won't Apple and ATT lose money that should be going to the iPhone?
I am now going to answer these questions and provide a lot of complete speculation about Steve's grand strategy here. Since this is my first lengthy, analytical, post on my very own blog, I will remind you dear readers that I don't provide citations or links (except when necessary to avoid plagiarism accusations) because that's not the point. My point is to provide commentary on other people's reports of current affairs. If any of my ideas come directly from other sources, I will cite them. If you think I am wrong, by all means, let me know.
Ahh. The iPhone price drop. So welcome to me, since I was waiting for Rev. B and (let's face it) a price cut. Actually, I was hoping for an iPhone Nano. Something in the $200 range without the WiFI, coverflow, multi-touch, etc., but I was also fairly certain that it wouldn't happen. At least not so soon. I was right. It didn't.
I am not interested in provoking a flamewar with the fucktards that paid 600 greenbacks the iPhone cost when it was released who are now pissed because *gasp* technology gets cheaper over time. Oops. Maybe I just did. I don't care. Don't even bother posting comments because I will nosefuck your comments to make you sound even dumber than your really are. Why? Because you fall into that category of increasingly irritating jizzbrains who have (or think you have) more money than smarts.
I swear. It's as though any idiot with 200 bucks can go buy a Dell and suddenly you are a tech expert writing for some newsrag or tech blog and you shill for anything that isn't Apple, and we (the public) are supposed to believe you because you get paid 2 dollars an inch to write stuff that makes MicroSlut look better.
God. I want to go on a Bill Hicks-style rant about the media whores right now, but it will distract me from my point.
Speaking of points and having all that out of the way, here goes:
The iPhone Price Drop (for real)
Everything that I have read so far makes me believe that no one really knows exactly what the iPhone cost Apple. The estimates that call it at around 300 bucks are probably bogus. Even if they are right in terms of components, they don't take into account R&D costs.
It has been speculated (for good reason) that the price cut is simple economics. The phones weren't selling quite well enough, so you drop the price to increase demand.
In most cases, I would agree. But the known facts of this situation contradict simple economics. The iPhone has been selling as wildly as expected; Apple is on track to sell the predicted million units by the end of the fiscal quarter, and that was before the price cut. Therefore, it is tough to argue that there is a scarcity of demand that justifies a decrease in price.
Even if that were the case, a cut of 33%? After less than 3 months? What is Apple smoking? Microsoft and Sony have been selling game platforms at a loss for 1.5 and about .5 years, respectively. It took Sony 6 months to cut prices, and MS responded with a 50-dollar cut.
So what else could do it? Why do you decrease profit margins on an item that is selling just fine?
I'll tell you why. Apple did it for the same reason that Sony and MS sell game systems at a loss: Market Share. Installed User Base. Platform Supremacy. Whatever you want to call it. But Apple did it far better than either of the other two. Apple did/is doing it without losing money.
(As a quick aside, I want to point out that products and prices and feature-sets don't just happen overnight. They are planned ahead. Apple knows just as well as any decently informed consumer (by the way, that includes, ahem, ALL OF EUROPE AND THE REST OF THE WORLD knows that the costs of contracts far outweigh the initial cost of XYZ smartphone. If anyone ever told you with a straight face that the MOTO Q or BB or whatever was only $99, and the iPhone was way overpriced, I hope you had the good sense to shoot him or her in the face with a good magnum round. Our gene pool can't afford that kind of idiocy. The total cost of ownership for an iPhone is not just less, but MUCH less than other smartphones.)
Anyway, the iPhone is about market share. Steve even made that clear in the Jan. announcement. It was even more clear from CFO Oppenheimer's remarks that iPhone profits are being treated as a subscription and profits will be amortized over 2 years. It's not about windfall Apple profits. It's not about margin. It's about breaking into a new market and taking over. Apple sold just enough iPhones at 600 bucks a pop to cover R&D, plus whatever else he needed to cover the anticipated "rebate." Then he cut the price because he wants everyone to have an iPhone.
Do you hear me, people? The Apple iPhone is selling like women at the chicken shack! The simple economic model of supply and demand does not apply.
At first, I was mostly curious about Steve's decision to cut the iPhone's price by 200 bucks. So soon? So much? What? Now a 100$ credit for the whiners that bought it then but suddenly can't afford it? What the hell is going on here?
Then I was really interested in why Apple would release a product so similar, the iPod Touch. It does everything but make phone calls. Why? Won't Apple and ATT lose money that should be going to the iPhone?
I am now going to answer these questions and provide a lot of complete speculation about Steve's grand strategy here. Since this is my first lengthy, analytical, post on my very own blog, I will remind you dear readers that I don't provide citations or links (except when necessary to avoid plagiarism accusations) because that's not the point. My point is to provide commentary on other people's reports of current affairs. If any of my ideas come directly from other sources, I will cite them. If you think I am wrong, by all means, let me know.
Ahh. The iPhone price drop. So welcome to me, since I was waiting for Rev. B and (let's face it) a price cut. Actually, I was hoping for an iPhone Nano. Something in the $200 range without the WiFI, coverflow, multi-touch, etc., but I was also fairly certain that it wouldn't happen. At least not so soon. I was right. It didn't.
I am not interested in provoking a flamewar with the fucktards that paid 600 greenbacks the iPhone cost when it was released who are now pissed because *gasp* technology gets cheaper over time. Oops. Maybe I just did. I don't care. Don't even bother posting comments because I will nosefuck your comments to make you sound even dumber than your really are. Why? Because you fall into that category of increasingly irritating jizzbrains who have (or think you have) more money than smarts.
I swear. It's as though any idiot with 200 bucks can go buy a Dell and suddenly you are a tech expert writing for some newsrag or tech blog and you shill for anything that isn't Apple, and we (the public) are supposed to believe you because you get paid 2 dollars an inch to write stuff that makes MicroSlut look better.
God. I want to go on a Bill Hicks-style rant about the media whores right now, but it will distract me from my point.
Speaking of points and having all that out of the way, here goes:
The iPhone Price Drop (for real)
Everything that I have read so far makes me believe that no one really knows exactly what the iPhone cost Apple. The estimates that call it at around 300 bucks are probably bogus. Even if they are right in terms of components, they don't take into account R&D costs.
It has been speculated (for good reason) that the price cut is simple economics. The phones weren't selling quite well enough, so you drop the price to increase demand.
In most cases, I would agree. But the known facts of this situation contradict simple economics. The iPhone has been selling as wildly as expected; Apple is on track to sell the predicted million units by the end of the fiscal quarter, and that was before the price cut. Therefore, it is tough to argue that there is a scarcity of demand that justifies a decrease in price.
Even if that were the case, a cut of 33%? After less than 3 months? What is Apple smoking? Microsoft and Sony have been selling game platforms at a loss for 1.5 and about .5 years, respectively. It took Sony 6 months to cut prices, and MS responded with a 50-dollar cut.
So what else could do it? Why do you decrease profit margins on an item that is selling just fine?
I'll tell you why. Apple did it for the same reason that Sony and MS sell game systems at a loss: Market Share. Installed User Base. Platform Supremacy. Whatever you want to call it. But Apple did it far better than either of the other two. Apple did/is doing it without losing money.
(As a quick aside, I want to point out that products and prices and feature-sets don't just happen overnight. They are planned ahead. Apple knows just as well as any decently informed consumer (by the way, that includes, ahem, ALL OF EUROPE AND THE REST OF THE WORLD knows that the costs of contracts far outweigh the initial cost of XYZ smartphone. If anyone ever told you with a straight face that the MOTO Q or BB or whatever was only $99, and the iPhone was way overpriced, I hope you had the good sense to shoot him or her in the face with a good magnum round. Our gene pool can't afford that kind of idiocy. The total cost of ownership for an iPhone is not just less, but MUCH less than other smartphones.)
Anyway, the iPhone is about market share. Steve even made that clear in the Jan. announcement. It was even more clear from CFO Oppenheimer's remarks that iPhone profits are being treated as a subscription and profits will be amortized over 2 years. It's not about windfall Apple profits. It's not about margin. It's about breaking into a new market and taking over. Apple sold just enough iPhones at 600 bucks a pop to cover R&D, plus whatever else he needed to cover the anticipated "rebate." Then he cut the price because he wants everyone to have an iPhone.
Do you hear me, people? The Apple iPhone is selling like women at the chicken shack! The simple economic model of supply and demand does not apply.
The Economy of the iPhone, or How Apple is Going to Take Over the World Part II
I left you with the notion that basic economic principals do not apply to Apple.
Hmm. The first thought is, of course, that Steve's Reality Distortion Field has affected me.
No. Not at All.
Let's have a bit of a history lesson. It's good for the soul. Or something.
The iPhone is a long-awaited dream of Steve's that's taken years to bear fruit. Why?
Well, why not indulge in a bunch of fanciful speculation? At least my speculation is better than shill.com
Or whatever passes for a tech blog/news site/rumor mill/ these days.
Steve got his start with the infamous cracking of Ma Bell's phone network. He has, for his entire life, bucked the system that says, "Go forth and multiply Corporate Domination." Steve never wanted a part of that. When he had his own companies, he didn't want that. When he saw kids his age doing that kind of thing, he didn't like that. Steve is, among other things, anti-corporate.
It's practically inarguable that he saw the potential in the music player market of the late 90s/early 00s. Now, he owns it. Fast-forward to today. Steve identified another ripe market just waiting for his solution. His goal is to own it.
But how do you truly own a market? Ma Bell thought it owned a market . . . every time a company thinks it owns a market, someone complains about monopoly.
What happens? The government takes privately-owned property and forces the owner to "compete on equal terms" with the competition. The companies that laid down that cable networks we all use had their cables removed from them. They were forced to rent their own wire from themselves and pay fees for infrastructure they built. Because that's fair. Or something.
Of course, a company that that gains a huge market share and then rapes consumers is no better than the government solution. It's probably worse. Which is why we let the government "fix" the problems that we consumer-sheep create for ourselves.
What does this have to do with the iPod or the iPhone? It has a lot to do with them. Steve has a chip on his shoulder. He is on a mission to prove that market dominance is not the same as monopoly. How? Why? Because dominance is accomplished by merit; monopoly is not. One is a good that is so good that everyone buys it by choice, the other is a bad that is so bad that people only buy it because they have no other choice.
Steve hates monopolies, but he loves dominance. And, for the reason above, this is not the paradox it seems to be. Steve is on a mission to destroy monopolies by beating all of them at their own shitty games. And in the process, he is doing it without hurting consumers. He is using Apple's market dominance to lean on companies that were, until recently, impossible to bargain with. Apple is negotiating with all the major players in content, and Apple is winning.
But Steve is responsible for the company. So when Apple launched the iPhone after years of costly R&D, Apple knew that it could command a hefty pricetag. Apple knew that the early adopters with money to burn would subsidize the cost of development. When sales numbers hit X, the price was dropped to a price point that fell in line with normal iPod offerings. Apple did what no other tech company I know of has ever done: they got consumers to pay for the total cost of a product in less than 3 months.
Apple is doing what it has done before, and what few companies have ever done: turn a profit while pwning the market.
Hmm. The first thought is, of course, that Steve's Reality Distortion Field has affected me.
No. Not at All.
Let's have a bit of a history lesson. It's good for the soul. Or something.
The iPhone is a long-awaited dream of Steve's that's taken years to bear fruit. Why?
Well, why not indulge in a bunch of fanciful speculation? At least my speculation is better than shill.com
Or whatever passes for a tech blog/news site/rumor mill/ these days.
Steve got his start with the infamous cracking of Ma Bell's phone network. He has, for his entire life, bucked the system that says, "Go forth and multiply Corporate Domination." Steve never wanted a part of that. When he had his own companies, he didn't want that. When he saw kids his age doing that kind of thing, he didn't like that. Steve is, among other things, anti-corporate.
It's practically inarguable that he saw the potential in the music player market of the late 90s/early 00s. Now, he owns it. Fast-forward to today. Steve identified another ripe market just waiting for his solution. His goal is to own it.
But how do you truly own a market? Ma Bell thought it owned a market . . . every time a company thinks it owns a market, someone complains about monopoly.
What happens? The government takes privately-owned property and forces the owner to "compete on equal terms" with the competition. The companies that laid down that cable networks we all use had their cables removed from them. They were forced to rent their own wire from themselves and pay fees for infrastructure they built. Because that's fair. Or something.
Of course, a company that that gains a huge market share and then rapes consumers is no better than the government solution. It's probably worse. Which is why we let the government "fix" the problems that we consumer-sheep create for ourselves.
What does this have to do with the iPod or the iPhone? It has a lot to do with them. Steve has a chip on his shoulder. He is on a mission to prove that market dominance is not the same as monopoly. How? Why? Because dominance is accomplished by merit; monopoly is not. One is a good that is so good that everyone buys it by choice, the other is a bad that is so bad that people only buy it because they have no other choice.
Steve hates monopolies, but he loves dominance. And, for the reason above, this is not the paradox it seems to be. Steve is on a mission to destroy monopolies by beating all of them at their own shitty games. And in the process, he is doing it without hurting consumers. He is using Apple's market dominance to lean on companies that were, until recently, impossible to bargain with. Apple is negotiating with all the major players in content, and Apple is winning.
But Steve is responsible for the company. So when Apple launched the iPhone after years of costly R&D, Apple knew that it could command a hefty pricetag. Apple knew that the early adopters with money to burn would subsidize the cost of development. When sales numbers hit X, the price was dropped to a price point that fell in line with normal iPod offerings. Apple did what no other tech company I know of has ever done: they got consumers to pay for the total cost of a product in less than 3 months.
Apple is doing what it has done before, and what few companies have ever done: turn a profit while pwning the market.
The Economy of the iPhone, or How Apple is Going to Take Over the World Part III
So. Following up on the heels of my last bit, how, specifically, does Apple Inc. avoid the stigma of monopoly?
The answer to this is not that difficult, so long as you are able to accurately answer the question: what does Apple do, anyway?
To be fair, it took Apple itself a long time to figure this out.
Apple delivers content.
It does so by delivering its content with hardware that is specifically taylored to make its content easily accessible to the people who want the content. In some cases, Apple creates its own content (OS X, iLife, etc.), but in most other cases, Apple is delivering other people's content the way they want it: easy.
Apple is in some ways analogous to Ma Bell or Time Warner, in that it has created a means of moving data from one place to another, but it has outsmarted the monopoly bitches by ensuring that the means of delivery is an object that the individual owns rather than something a they own.
So long as individuals buy a computer or an iPod or an iPhone and use it as they see fit, there is no chance that Apple will have to take the hard knocks of monopolist corps. People cheer and applaud when invisible cables buried underneath the ground are taken from companies by the government and are then used by by other people to give you lower prices.
Are you going to cheer if the government takes your iPod from you and forces you to let your neighbor rent it to someone else and pay you a dollar a month after you spent 400 bucks on it?
No. You won't let that happen. That iPod is yours, dammit. Apple has changed the economy of content delivery. Apple has taken the large, abstract, cloud out of the equation and put the pipe in your hands.
So that's how it goes with the iPod. Who gives a shit about that anyway? iPods have been around for years, and only a few people complain. What does this have to do with the iPhone, Ma Bell, monopolies, or THE GODDAMM PRICE CUT?!
The answer to this is not that difficult, so long as you are able to accurately answer the question: what does Apple do, anyway?
To be fair, it took Apple itself a long time to figure this out.
Apple delivers content.
It does so by delivering its content with hardware that is specifically taylored to make its content easily accessible to the people who want the content. In some cases, Apple creates its own content (OS X, iLife, etc.), but in most other cases, Apple is delivering other people's content the way they want it: easy.
Apple is in some ways analogous to Ma Bell or Time Warner, in that it has created a means of moving data from one place to another, but it has outsmarted the monopoly bitches by ensuring that the means of delivery is an object that the individual owns rather than something a they own.
So long as individuals buy a computer or an iPod or an iPhone and use it as they see fit, there is no chance that Apple will have to take the hard knocks of monopolist corps. People cheer and applaud when invisible cables buried underneath the ground are taken from companies by the government and are then used by by other people to give you lower prices.
Are you going to cheer if the government takes your iPod from you and forces you to let your neighbor rent it to someone else and pay you a dollar a month after you spent 400 bucks on it?
No. You won't let that happen. That iPod is yours, dammit. Apple has changed the economy of content delivery. Apple has taken the large, abstract, cloud out of the equation and put the pipe in your hands.
So that's how it goes with the iPod. Who gives a shit about that anyway? iPods have been around for years, and only a few people complain. What does this have to do with the iPhone, Ma Bell, monopolies, or THE GODDAMM PRICE CUT?!
Friday, September 07, 2007
The Economy of the iPhone, or How Apple is Going to Take Over the World Part IV
Well, now it comes down to it, and I'd better have a spectacular point after 4 posts on the same (sort-of) topic, right?
Actually, it's my blog, and I can just leave you hanging here if I want.
Based on the number of idiotic comments I've gotten so far (and deleted, after a sound nosefucking, as promised), there probably isn't much point in continuing this.
But there are a few out there who deserve, I suppose.
I am going to assume that all of you still reading can remember a few points at a time. The point I am referencing is that the iPhone maneuver is all about market share. Steve wants all of it for the iPhone. Why? Very simple: he wants everyone in the world to have an iPhone on the day that he gives the big middle finger to ATT, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile . . . pretty much every player in that market.
What is going to happen? Duh! The iPhone is an internet appliance + music player that happens to place calls on the remains of one of Steve's most hated monopolistic enemies. Why partner with ATT? Is it only poetic justice?
No. He tried to go with Verizon because they have a better data network (and don't be fooled, moo-cow, the iPhone is all about data), but V stiffed him.
In all, that's ok. It's almost better. VoIP is gaining ground. WiFi is gaining ground. It won't be long before SIP-based VoIP solutions are readily available for iPhone, and wireless data networks are ubiquitous. Our spineless consumer society will demand that every square inch of the US be covered in "free" 802.11 wireless bliss. Of course, we'll pay ten times what it's worth in taxes, and the solution will lack any semblance of security, but that's what we will want: nothing at the cost of everything.
In the mean time, cell-cos will still be gouging our bums with contracts. Then one day, Steve will get up on the stage at the Moscone Center and tell everyone to cancel their service. The iPhone is a fully functional VoIP phone. All you need to do is update iTunes and sync your phone. Unlimited voice and data on the network of your choice.
The cell-cos will be brought to their financial knees in a matter of hours. Service contracts will die in a flash. You will pay only for the minutes you use (emergency, most likely), and the prices will be dirt cheap. One more thing: those iPod Touches? Sync those. They are now phones.
Apple has been screwing with every cell-co it touched. ATT was the first one desperate enough to bite. Apple's taking a cut of the subscription, mandating policy, requiring system upgrades, basically doing everything Apple can to make them miserable.
Now this price cut has flooded ATT with support calls, service rebates, everything to keep dumbasses from cancelling service contracts that they can still get out of. You think Steve doesn't know this? Apple isn't repaying ATT's losses. Apple doesn't give a shit about credit card companies that offer price protection plans (AMEX is bitching really loud right now. No comment from Cupertino). Apple has its money from the only remaining child of the company that Steve has hated for 30 years. And Apple has it for the next 2-5 years (depending on which unreliable corporate shill you happen to believe about the secret details of Apple's deal with ATT).
In the mean time, while Apple makes millions of ATT contracts, the iPod Touch canabalizes iPhone sales, adding an extra shame to ATT and giving excellent market penetration to Apple.
That's the reason for the price drop on the iPhones, people. It wasn't to screw over the Apple faithful, it wasn't just to see if El Jobso could get away with it, it damn sure wasn't because iPhones weren't selling well enough. This is about obtaining a critical mass of market share so that Apple can bring down another unethical, ass-raping, monopolistic bunch of thugs that call themselves businessmen. And it was about doing so while making a profit, like any sensible company does.
This is no hobby. Steve is trying to take over the cell world just like he did the music world. Unless I miss my guess, he is going to succeed.
Actually, it's my blog, and I can just leave you hanging here if I want.
Based on the number of idiotic comments I've gotten so far (and deleted, after a sound nosefucking, as promised), there probably isn't much point in continuing this.
But there are a few out there who deserve, I suppose.
I am going to assume that all of you still reading can remember a few points at a time. The point I am referencing is that the iPhone maneuver is all about market share. Steve wants all of it for the iPhone. Why? Very simple: he wants everyone in the world to have an iPhone on the day that he gives the big middle finger to ATT, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile . . . pretty much every player in that market.
What is going to happen? Duh! The iPhone is an internet appliance + music player that happens to place calls on the remains of one of Steve's most hated monopolistic enemies. Why partner with ATT? Is it only poetic justice?
No. He tried to go with Verizon because they have a better data network (and don't be fooled, moo-cow, the iPhone is all about data), but V stiffed him.
In all, that's ok. It's almost better. VoIP is gaining ground. WiFi is gaining ground. It won't be long before SIP-based VoIP solutions are readily available for iPhone, and wireless data networks are ubiquitous. Our spineless consumer society will demand that every square inch of the US be covered in "free" 802.11 wireless bliss. Of course, we'll pay ten times what it's worth in taxes, and the solution will lack any semblance of security, but that's what we will want: nothing at the cost of everything.
In the mean time, cell-cos will still be gouging our bums with contracts. Then one day, Steve will get up on the stage at the Moscone Center and tell everyone to cancel their service. The iPhone is a fully functional VoIP phone. All you need to do is update iTunes and sync your phone. Unlimited voice and data on the network of your choice.
The cell-cos will be brought to their financial knees in a matter of hours. Service contracts will die in a flash. You will pay only for the minutes you use (emergency, most likely), and the prices will be dirt cheap. One more thing: those iPod Touches? Sync those. They are now phones.
Apple has been screwing with every cell-co it touched. ATT was the first one desperate enough to bite. Apple's taking a cut of the subscription, mandating policy, requiring system upgrades, basically doing everything Apple can to make them miserable.
Now this price cut has flooded ATT with support calls, service rebates, everything to keep dumbasses from cancelling service contracts that they can still get out of. You think Steve doesn't know this? Apple isn't repaying ATT's losses. Apple doesn't give a shit about credit card companies that offer price protection plans (AMEX is bitching really loud right now. No comment from Cupertino). Apple has its money from the only remaining child of the company that Steve has hated for 30 years. And Apple has it for the next 2-5 years (depending on which unreliable corporate shill you happen to believe about the secret details of Apple's deal with ATT).
In the mean time, while Apple makes millions of ATT contracts, the iPod Touch canabalizes iPhone sales, adding an extra shame to ATT and giving excellent market penetration to Apple.
That's the reason for the price drop on the iPhones, people. It wasn't to screw over the Apple faithful, it wasn't just to see if El Jobso could get away with it, it damn sure wasn't because iPhones weren't selling well enough. This is about obtaining a critical mass of market share so that Apple can bring down another unethical, ass-raping, monopolistic bunch of thugs that call themselves businessmen. And it was about doing so while making a profit, like any sensible company does.
This is no hobby. Steve is trying to take over the cell world just like he did the music world. Unless I miss my guess, he is going to succeed.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Things I Want to Know: #1
At what point in time did "pulling a boner" change in meaning from "doing something stupid but mostly harmless" to "becoming sexually aroused?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)