How the BitCoin Crash is the Opposite of Modern?

Today’s post is written by guest author, Simon Burns.

Over the course of the 1630’s, tulips grew in value for no apparent reason. The resulting “tulipmania” built prices up to 10 times the salary of a skilled worker or several thousand times their original trading price. This exponential run was much more to do with the perceived investment value of tulips than the market economy’s demand for the plant. Following a meteoric rise in prices, the price came crashing down in 1637 evaporating personal fortunes of many.

In the last few months, Bitcoin (the virtual currency) has seen a similar meteoric rise from growing publicity, ease of use as a legitimate payment and most problematically, in perceived investment value. The combination of these factors have moved the price of Bitcoins from $13 USD per Bitcoin in January 2013 to a peak of over $240 this past week.

Then in a move few in the technology industry predicted, but most in the financial industry had foreseen, the Bitcoin price collapsed as the “madness of the crowds” and the insane promotion of Bitcoin’s potential elapsed. The price fell from it’s peak over 50% in a few hours.

The phenomenon of a fast rising commodity followed by a much faster crash is much older than modern financial markets and is first seen affecting mainstream investors in 1637. That’s correct if the technological, progressive innovators that were so heavily invested in this “currency of the future” had taken the time to reflect and analyze the very basis of financial markets from their inception. They would have clearly seen the crash predicted by financial professionals, it’s well known as a “Pump and Dump” in financial circles.

Long live the digital revolution, as long as it recognizes it is not immune from the lessons of the past.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and may or may not represent those of The App Store Chronicle’s as a whole.

Author Bio: Simon Burns is a startup CEO, Investment Firm Manager and Aspiring Visionary. Read more at simonburns.in/a/cardigan

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Did Netflix Invent the Binge?

No. As frequently as its’ claimed (shout out to you- Wired Magazine) Netflix far from invented the tv-binge where an entire series is watched straight through. Bingewatching has been happening ever since the first series appeared on VHS and other tape formats(if you don’t know what that is- ask your parents). I’ve talked to several people who told me they binged through series on DVD while in college.

What Netflix did was innovate. They took an existing process, and made it much easier. Instead of having to buy or rent the series, you can stream it to your computer in seconds. It’s portable, cheap ($8 a month), and easy.

My point here isn’t to advertise for Netflix. My point is to say that the greatest products take an existing process and simplify it. Many people are questioning Netflix’s plan to release all of the “Arrested Development” remake episodes at once, but they’re doing what they should do. They’re providing easier access to match consumer habits, and they’ll see a reward from that.

So, what other products follow this trend of innovation?

How about the iPhone? The iPhone wasn’t an invention. We had phones with music, and that surfed the web, and we even had a few handheld touch devices. Apple took the concept, streamlined the most common processes, and opened it up to developers, and they were rewarded for it. They innovated an existing system, and that’s basically the path to success with any company these days. Facebook didn’t invent social networking and Google didn’t invent search. Twitter didn’t even invent microblogging. They all simply offered the best solutions, grew the fastest, and won their markets.

I could go on, but between the last sentence and this, I fell out of my chair, braced and tensed to avoid hitting the metal bottom, and really hurt my back, so for the sake of keeping this article focussed (it would go in all different directions if I wrote in pain) I’ll end it here with a question.

What’s your favorite application of innovation?

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Give Me 5 Reasons Why I Shouldn’t Buy An iPad Mini!

I’m buying an iPad Mini and you CAN stop me. It’s really against my better judgement to buy a device that will clearly be replaced soon, and that clearly is a bit underpowered…but I can’t help myself. Can you reason with me?

Both my trip to the 5th Avenue Apple Store (pictures below) and some interesting things I’ve read on the mini have convinced me that it’s the right decision. Just like with family, you’ve got to love the mini for what it is, and not be bitter for what it’s not.

Why I Really Shouldn’t Buy it

I WRITE about technology for pete’s sake. I really should know better. The iPad mini is running on the hardware of 2011, and this is 2013. The screen is underwhelming even compared to far cheaper competitors like the Nexus 7. Rumors (like here, here, and here) all point towards a new mini within the next three or four months. Some say it will have a retina display, while others argue that it’s simply too costly, and we won’t see a Retina model until 2014. Some say the next model’s release date may be as soon as next month.Nonetheless, there’s consensus that now is NOT the time to buy.
Apple Store 5th Avenue

Why I Will (Unless you convince me otherwise)

I’m going to do it- I swear I will. Why? Why would I waste $500 on an obsolete piece of technology? Well, first of all it costs less than you think to buy a tablet, and secondly I really like the mini.

Despite the older stats, when you actually use the mini it feels quite fast for most things. I’ve happily browsed the web, watched videos, and even enjoyed games of temple run 2 while testing out the Mini. I’m underwhelmed by the screen but overwhelmed by the design. It looks great, and it is incredibly light. I honestly loved every moment I held it at the Apple store. Another note: The camera was as fast as lightening

Typing was awkward, and the screen wasn’t great (it was pretty good, just not as good as most Apple products), but I’ve learned to accept that. I’m an accepting person, and I like the ipad for what it is: It’s a perfectly weighted portable device with the biggest possible screen that’s comfortable in the hand. It’s a device for browsing the web on the go, and doing more advanced tasks in places where carrying a computer isn’t possible. It does everything I want it to do, even if it could do a few things a bit better.

And I’m not alone. Here are some other writers who feel exactly as I do about the mini. Minimally Minimalist is a Microsoft Employee, but he loves the mini. Despite its’ drawbacks, Walt Mossberg calls it “a perfect solution“.

It is. It’s a perfect solution. That simple moniker describes it perfectly. Perfectly acceptable as a tablet solution, and so tempting despite its’ drawbacks.

Commence convincing me otherwise.

 

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Big Tech Companies Are Anti-Social

Maybe it’s me, but it seems like the only way to talk to most big companies is to sue them. Take Aaron Greenspan with Google for example. He had to sue them for them to answer him on why his Adsense account had been suspended (more on him later). He’s not alone either. Thousands of people have reported similar stories with Google. Look at HP. I nearly had to sue them to get them to repair a poorly made product of mine, and one reader told me that when he complained to HP, they said “If you don’t like it, sue us.” This seems to be all too common.

Aaron Greenspan had a very common story of being suspended from Adsense for no given reason (just see this thread here to see how many people it has happened to) with two major exceptions. He’s an excellent writer, and he has balls. When Google wouldn’t give him a rhyme or reason, he took them to small claims court and won, and when they appealed the decision in superior court, he took them on. He didn’t win, but through articles he published on it (here), he gained notoriety, and he finally learned the answer to why his account was terminated. It took two court cases for Google to answer, but they answered in specifics. Now why couldn’t they have done that the first time? I love Google for their products and their innovation, but I don’t like how little customer service they offer. It’s not bad. It’s just non-existant and they should at least offer some human support. And Google isn’t alone.

When my HP netbook was falling to pieces, I called HP support and was routed to India. It took me several searches to find a US-based HP number. From there I was routed through a series of elevated call centers where they told me simply “nothing can be done”. Why? Because even high-level support people are given no power to override the system. Like Greenspan, I also tried contacting engineers and executives at HP. Here’s their response: “Calling our employees repeatedly is harassment and we will report you if you call anyone other than (given support number) again”. Harassment? I called readily available phone numbers and simply asked for help in navigating the impossibly computerized and outsourced HP support system  . I eventually reached out to an influential tech friend of mine who in turn reached out to his HP contact, and that contact got my device repaired, and an apology for my troubles. Still, others weren’t so lucky.

Peter Odds of the UK recently bought an HP computer. Check out the story he posted on a group I run.

“From the start it suffered from the inability to re-awake after going to ‘sleep’. All you can do is power it off and restart losing all unsaved work in the process. I have spent hours on the telephone with their technicians, at my expense, trying to correct the fault. I asked for my money back and after much argument I accepted a repair, got it back and the same fault quickly showed up again. Following Consumer Direct advice I have now again asked for my money back quoting the relevant UK Consumer Law. HP think they are above UK law and have told me that the only option is another repair or to take them to court!”

Will They Ever Get More Social?

Who knows? Psychologists do plenty of studies on the antisocial effects of technology on teens. Why can’t they do the same studies on customer service? Honestly, I refuse to patronize HP after the issues I, and others have had. Google has so many redeeming qualities that I doubt I’d ever stop using them, but they could certainly work on their customer service. As Mr. Greenspan says, “I would suggest that if the company really must be evil, then in the interest of avoiding additional embarrassment, it could at least try living by a useful, if somewhat less ambitious, motto: Don’t be assholes”. Have you ever had a similar experience?

Other Good Reads:

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Ad