Posts by Techwriter10

Gene,
You're obviously convinced that you're the only one who understands how this works. When one is convinced as you, there is little point in arguing further. I suggest you read me regularly before you judge me so harshly, rather than waltzing in here with your first post in the community trying to show off how smart you think you are. You make a great AT&T spokesperson. I suggest you go work for them or perhaps you do already.

Ron

Gene,
I think you misunderstood what I wrote. First of all, just because you have better performance in a single state, doesn't mean it's better for everyone. There are places where it's still bad, but that was only a small part of my point. In my experience AT&T has not been customer oriented most of the time. They have chosen to limit network access at a time where their phones require more, not less access. I'm sure the contract with Apple is not endless. Most do have an end point and I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet. I see little advantage to Apple to maintain the exclusive agreement, especially when they want to sell more Apps and that requires bandwidth that AT&T is getting stingier with.

I don't think you need to get nasty because you disagree with me. If you read my posts regularly you would know I cover the space regularly and didn't just write this out of the blue.

Thanks for your comment.

Ron

Hi Ron,

Do not get disappointed. iphone is a very cool gadget to have. The problem does not lie with iphone or android. The problem will be with any of the Data Provider. Even if yopu go with Cingular or Sprint or Verizon the problem will be the same.

Due to iphone the Data Usage of AT&T has multiplied. Earlier with only 2G phones the data transfer was less. But with iphone, Blackberries , android etc. coming to market the data usage has suddenly increased. Criticizing AT&T is very easy on our part but on their part they have to deal with huge spikes in data usage due to the cool features of iphone. They will also be thinking for a solution as the people in at&t also know that they have competition in the market.

Thanks for the comment, but I can't sympathize with AT&T. They have profited handsomely from the iPhone and they should take some of that money and invest it in their networks to keep up with growing demand. The reaction of a networking company to increased demand should not be to cut access, but to add capacity. They can't cry poverty when you look at how much they have gained from the relationship with Apple.

Thanks again for your comment.
Ron

How many people enjoy their service with AT&T? <Peers out into audience holding hand over his eyes> Not many, not many. And AT&T just seems to keep getting more unfriendly all the time. Recently they announced data caps just before the release of iPhone 4 (see New AT&T Data Plans Make No Sense), then there have been rumors of micro cell activity (explained here) counting against your data limit. People complain about bad reception in certain major cities, especially New York (which I've experienced myself). So it begs the question, as aggravation with AT&T grows, why does Apple continue its exclusive relationship?

Hasn't Hurt 'Em Yet

If reports last week are to be believed, Apple has already pre-sold more than 600,000 iPhone 4s. AppleInsider reports that one analyst predicts Apple will have 100 million iphone subscribers by the end of 2011.

Earnings reports from the last couple of years show that iPhone sales are driving big profits for Apple. Of course that's US and worldwide, but a big piece of the pie has to be the US market. So whatever warts AT&T may have and however much users complain, Apple is still making big money and selling beaucoup phones. What's their motivation to leave AT&T behind?

I'm Thinking About It

As much as I love my iPhone 3G (and I do) and as much as I want a new iPhone 4 this summer as my contract comes …

I'm sure he makes mistakes too, but he's not stupid. I'm fairly sure in this case he knew what he was saying. I watch this space fairly carefully so I've seen many of these statements, which seem very stupid at the time, but then seem to have had a purpose when looking back.

I'm not sure his public attitude had anything to do with Microsof't inability to react to Apple's success in the mobile space. Those statements were about marketing, not development. I think Microsoft is just a large company, and like many large companies, it's hard for it to react to a changing market.

Thanks for the debate.

Ron

Calico:
If you're suggesting it's the opposite, I obviously don't agree. I'm certainly not spinning on their behalf. Why would I? Just making an observation as I see it.

Thanks for the comment.

Ron

Sometimes you look at the morning's headlines and wonder what exactly a particular CEO was thinking when they made a certain statement. Recently we've had these gems from seasoned CEOs:
Carol Bartz told Michael Arrington of Tech Crunch to f**k off.
Steve Ballmer admitted his company was number 5 in the cell phone market.
Mark Hurd said HP didn't buy Palm to get into the smart phone market.

On the face of it, all three of these statements make you stand up and think that maybe the three of them went off their rocker for a moment, but I don't think that's what happened at all. I think each of these statements was carefully scripted with the purpose of putting the CEOs and their company's front and center in the collective minds of internet users. And it worked.

Social Media with a Bullet

Let's face it in the days of Twitter, Bartz's statement went around the world instantly. Suddenly everyone was talking about Yahoo! That she did it to Michael Arringington, a guy who wouldn't necessarily win many popularity contests, was even shrewder on her part. How many people would want to see a video snippet of the Yahoo! CEO telling Arrington to F**k off. Lots, I'm certain. If that was the intent of her statement, she did a really good job. Whatever her thinking, she didn't say it by chance. …

I spent the better part of this week at the Enterprise 2.0 Conference in Boston where I saw an excellent presentation called "The Dark Side of Enterprise 2.0." During this session, Kathleen Culver of Alactel-Lucent suggested that one of the big negatives of Enterprise 2.0 and by extension, social media in general, was that it presents us with too much information. She suggested it's impossible to filter through the noise to find what matters to you. I think to some extent she's right, but it also has the opposite effect by providing you with a trusted network to help point you to the content that matters most to you. Tools also have an impact on how well you can filter the larger river of content that flows over you every day in social media.

We Can't Multitask

Culver said that recent data and articles would suggest that we are being overloaded by information from our social networks. We can't multi-task like computers, at least we can't do it effectively. When our attention is divided, the theory goes, we really don't do anything well. I'm inclined to agree with that to an extent. In fact, I did a small experiment this morning where I shut off Twitter and the stream of announcements that appear automatically every few minutes, and I was able to accomplish more when I kept focused on the task at hand. That said, I do believe that social media has a positive impact on …

Just to let you know Microsoft owns %40 of apple, they were going to colapse a long time ago and micrsrosoft funded them.

My understanding is they owned a small amount of non-voting stock, which they sold back to Apple some time ago.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100502161932AA50l6c

Ron

Of course, it's worth pointing out, that this didn't happen. Another Apple rumor bites the dust.

Ron

Finito,
I wrote this post a year ago. Meego didn't exist at that time, but you're right it is a good alternative at this point.

Thanks for commenting,
Ron

IWDesigns:
I don't see how that's possible. Bing has maybe 10 percent market share. Google has 67 percent. Running scared from Bing is just baffling.

Thanks for the comment,
Ron

Aludo:
Quite right. Even when that search engine is in complete control of the market.

Thanks for the comment.
Ron

Heh, that happens. We who observer this space so carefully, can only come to the same conclusions from time time.

Ron

Davey,

Indeed. :-)

Thanks for the comment.

Ron

A funny thing happened this week. Google tried to become Bing by displaying full color pictures on its Home page, and was undone by a bug. The irony here is just too obvious to ignore. Bing influences Google to change its plain white page, and it comes apart because of a bug. You have to admit, it made Google look pretty foolish. Meanwhile, they must have been having a hearty laugh in the halls at Microsoft over this.

Bing's Strengths

One of things people have really liked about Bing is the changing high resolution picture it displays on the Bing Home page. They are quite nice, even if they are just eye candy with no real purpose. One of the signature design elements that has always defined Google is that they have presented a box on a plain white page. It's who they are, but it's clear Bing's modest success has them thinking, maybe overthinking and they believed they had to match Bing for whatever reason. So we have the picture experiment.

Google's Motivation

Marissa Mayer wrote in the Official Google Blog on June 2 that they were adding photos from well known artists as a way to enhance the user experience (and to blatantly copy Microsoft). The idea, however, had a bit of a twist. You could use one of your own photos, or you could choose one from the Google Picassa gallery of photos. Last week, however, she wrote …

The story wasn't about the leaked prototype. It was about pre-conference. rumors that didn't come to be. You chose to jump on the last line of my piece. I stand by the line.

Thanks for commenting.

Ron

The prototype might have provided some information about what it looked like. There was no way to know what it could do and that was the key. Nobody I heard predicted the great screen resolution, the high definition video, the back lit pictures, FaceTime and so forth.

Thanks for you comment (however snarky).

Ron

Apple released details of the extraordinary new iPhone 4 today at its World Wide Developer Conference. It's truly an amazing device and I'm sure everyone is going to be talking about the new features ad infinitum, so I wanted to reverse track and cover 5 things Steve Jobs didn't talk about today at WWDC10:

1. No New Carriers

AT&T remains the sole iPhone provider much to the chagrin of those who want to tell AT&T and their new data plans to stick it. It's all well and good that you can stream Netflix videos starting next summer, but data restrictions could put a damper on that unless you use WiFi. Would have been nice to hear about some additional carriers, but it didn't happen.

2. No iPad Refresh

This was all iPhone 4's day and there was nary a mention of the iPad today. But you have to think the next one will be coming out soon with a camera to take advantage of the brand new FaceTime video conferencing technology and the HD video editing tools available with iMovie for the iPhone.

3. No Changes to MobileMe

Yesterday I reported about possible changes to MobileMe, including a free version, but Jobs never even discussed the service. He also never breathed a word about iTunes, so no new cloud services any time soon.

4. Didn't Stick it To Google

After the beating …

Mr. Baker,
Exactly right. Google offers their cloud services for free and people are used to getting these services for free. It will be interesting to see how Apple goes with this. I for one would love it if they made it free. We'll find out later today.

Ron

Two years ago Apple introduced MobileMe. At the time I wrote a post called Apple Has No Business Charging for Mobile Me. My point was that people didn't want to pay $100 for a cloud service, that by all rights they should be getting for free. Folks pay a premium for Apple, and throwing in a service like MobileMe would have been a nice touch. As I wrote at the time complaining about the price of MobileMe:

"Apple should know its biggest asset is its customers' loyalty. It should be rewarding that loyalty, not trying to gouge a few more dollars from them. That just doesn’t make good business sense..."

It's possible that after two years, Apple may be catching up to my way of thinking. Renee Ritchie reports on TiPb that rumors suggest that Apple could be announcing a free MobileMe service at WWDC on Monday.

MobileMe Tiered Pricing Makes Sense

If Apple were to offer MobileMe for free, yet still wanted to keep part of the revenue stream, they could set up a free service with a certain amount of online storage space and a few other services such as an email address and a few web sites. Anyone who wanted more than that could pay on a tiered pricing system where you would get different levels of service at each price point. It's an approach that could work. (It's worth noting that you can buy additional online …

Blud,
Oh I'm sure some users will end up with lower monthly bills, but you get what you pay for and the potential for overages is always going to be there. I agree that they did a horrible job of presenting these changes, but I've never been very impressed with them as a company or a service provider. When it comes down to it, they are trying to save themselves from having to invest in more network infrastructure. It seems odd to me that they won't even offer an unlimited option for those like your friend who obviously need it. WiFi is all well and good, but AT&T is in the network business and they shouldn't be worried about people actually using their network.

Thanks for your comments.

Ron

Nicely done, James, but I have to assume your percentage numbers are coming from AT&T, so I'm not sure you can really trust those numbers. If 98 percent of users are covered by 2 GB, why get rid of unlimited plans at all? What's more, as people use more data-intensive services moving forward, these thresholds will become more of an issue. This will work for AT&T so long as the other cell carriers go along. As soon as someone offers a cheap unlimited data plan (and Sprint or T-Mobile would be smart to do this immediately as competitive differentiator), they are going to have an issue.

And as I say, I can't believe Apple isn't going to go ballistic over this. I certainly think they should be, as should iPhone users.

Thanks again for the excellent comment.

Ron

Steve:
I think you're right about that distinction and that AT&T prefers to move the network pressure to WiFi. Also like your point about Wired/Adobe iPad App.

I would prefer to see AT&T actually invest in their networks to deal with the additional pressure the iPhone (and iPad) bring, or have Apple stop using them as an exclusive sales channel.

Thanks for your comment.

Ron

Zuckerberg reportedly was out of his element in an interview with All Things Digital tonight. Here's a great example of how he's not really CEO material.

Jamaican 23:
I don't think anyone was suggesting that Google could ever put Apple out of business, only that they were trying to compete directly with them on several fronts. Google is a bit more than a search engine, but to me, all of their focus should be on getting people to use Google services where as you say they will be able to sell those ads.

Thanks for commenting.
Ron

AT&T announced new data plans today dramatically reducing the amount of network bandwidth access that AT&T customers will have in the future. Currently, iPhone customers have an unlimited data plan for $30. Under the new plan, you get:

• 200 MB for $15 per month
• 2 GB for $25 per month

iPhone tethering will be available for an additional $20 per month (meaning you can use your iPhone as a wireless modem). Existing iPhone customers can keep their unlimited plans for now, at least until they upgrade their phones I imagine.

What it Means in Practical Terms

I wanted to get a grip on my data usage and what this plan means to me. I went online and studied my bill, but couldn't find actual data usage, so I called AT&T customer service. I was told I used approximately 58 MB (57 and change) last month. I have an unlimited Family texting plan on the phone, so texts (even multimedia ones) don't count toward this total. I use a bunch of Apps including Twitter, Facebook, ESPN and MLB and I don't use a lot of data. I download a couple of Apps and an occassional song or video from iTunes in any given month.

I asked the customer service representative where I would start to run into problems with data usage and without hesitation, she said it involved downloading video. She said she downloads HD video at about 700 MB a pop. With …

Politics makes strange bedfellows, and so does business apparently. In the wake of Google's frontal attack on Apple at I/O recently, and this week's reports that Google was dropping Windows as an OS choice throughout its company, it seems that Apple could be running into the arms of Microsoft for solace.

There is a complicated dance that is constantly going on among the big technology players, but it's possible Google's actions are encouraging Apple to align with Microsoft, a move that might not make the most sense for a company that depends on ad sales for the majority of its income.

Google Fires a Big One

At Google I/O a couple of weeks ago, Google made it clear it wanted a piece of Apple's action, whether it was their new TV partnerships, their Android update or the very public display of affection for Adobe. There was little doubt that Google wanted to stick it to Apple. That's all well and good I suppose. Competition is healthy and often results in pushing the various platforms forward, but as I wrote in Google Bloodies Apple on the Technology Playground, it might not have been the smartest move in a strategic sense.

Then this week we hear, Google wants to expunge Windows from its enterprise, going so far as to blame Windows for its recent security issues in China (as I wrote about in Google Caught Between a Rock and a Hard Place …

Paulsonmax,

Thanks for your comment. As I said in a previous comment, some are suited to it more than others, but when your company reaches the size of Facebook, I think it's certainly better to bring an experienced pro on board as you suggest.

Thanks again for the comment.

Ron

That's an interesting analysis Katherine. And you're right, just because Facebook says it, doesn't mean it's true. It's in their best interest to inflate their numbers.

I would say there are many in the market who don't understand the implications of what Facebook does with their information. In that context, I don't think Rep. Boucher's bill is at all unreasonable.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Ron

Firstly he has a credibility problem, as he settled out of court re the legal action taken on him for alleging that he "stole" the idea. So right away no one believes him.

That's a good point, Anthony. There was a lawsuit filed by ConnectU claiming he stole the code for Facebook, and there was an out of court settlement in 2008, but if he truly is a thief, it doesn't rule out that he could be a good executive. As you point, however, it does put his credibility into question and should a person with a significant credibility issue be running a company like Facebook?

Ron

Specifically the way he has handled the entire privacy fiasco, which I've written about frequently both here and in other venues, and which I alluded to in the first paragraph.

His reaction in the Washington Post piece was to blame users for not being knowledgeable enough about his obtuse privacy controls. He says Facebook is about sharing, which it is, but we should control whom we share with, not Facebook and he doesn't seem to get that no matter how many times he hears it.

He misread and underestimated reaction to Facebook Beacon, and he has continually dismissed user concerns about how Facebook is using its data. A large organization like Facebook needs someone with tact who can smoothly and deftly deal with concerns and be a public face.

I realize you too are a young CEO and I'm not suggesting that nobody in their 20s can run a company. I would point to Aaron Levie at Box.net, the 25 year old CEO of Box.net, who similarly started the company in his dorm room. He seems to handle the job much more smoothly than Zuckerberg.

To answer the last part of your question, the person would present a competent public face, but more than that, they would if they are good at what they do understand the role of the organization in society. A company like Facebook is a more difficult company to manage because it is dealing intimate information about people's …

Hi Anthony:
That's my take too, but someone like this is probably unlikely to see his limitations and step aside. It's unfortunate because Facebook has grown into a huge organization. Their CEO, however doesn't seem to have grown into the job.

Thanks for the comment.
Ron

Mark Zuckerberg famously started Facebook in his dorm room. He's a geek who got lucky and today he is the CEO of a major corporation. Judging from his actions over the last year or so, I'm wondering if he's really suited to this job. He has little tact when speaking publicly. Even when he tries to smooth things over as he did recently in an OpEd Guest column in the Sunday Washington Post, he came off as arrogant.

Every Geek is Not Executive Material

Every geek that makes it big is not suited to the business world. Some make the transition, but in many cases, it's not a smooth one. Look at Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak. They created Apple Computer in the 70s, a couple of geeks in the proverbial garage, but they struggled as executives as the company grew. Jobs left the company in the mid-80s and returned in the late 90s where as a more mature corporate steward he lead the company to success.

Look at Google

This is also not without precedent in more modern times. Larry Page and Sergey Brin, who like Zuckerberg, came up with the idea for Google when they were students, recognized fairly early they needed the help of a seasoned executive to run the company. In 2001, just a few short years after they launched Google, they brought Eric Schmidt on board as CEO. They stepped into …

Insights:
Thanks and so true. We are not going backwards, that much is certain.

Thanks for the comment.

Ron

I seriously disagree about Google having technologically superior products, they pretty much give their stuff away. That's why they are so popular. If you look at Google's products for the Corporate world and they are so-so. They do the job, but they basically host ALL of your stuff. The same goes for Google Voice, and other new technologies. They are great because they are FREE. If Google looses their huge lead on online searches and getting paid by said searches, how soon before all of those free services become pay for play. That remains to be seen.

I think you don't understand how or why Apple is relevant and is still relevant. It's HOW they apply the technology that is available to make it easier to do the things you want to do without a huge learning curve. That sometimes requires some sacrifices like having total control over whatever you want to do (like the iPhone and iPad apps), but for some people, that is ok. They don't need fanatical control over every little thing their device needs to do. Those people are good for Google and Android.

Google is taking shots at Apple and Jobs because they have backing by Motorola and Verizon and other companies that absolutely hate Steve Jobs.

Hammer,
I think Google makes good tools, but they aren't in the same business as Apple, which manufacturers actual consumer devices, but obviously we agree about why Apple's successful. My opinion is that there is plenty of …

That isn't what I said. I never said their technology was no good, just that the extent of their competitive advantage is small or none. In other words, without the 'cool factor' Apple might have an advantage in the products they sell, but in my opinion, it is a small one. Apple only gets many of these sales because they are the cool thing to buy.. as you implied yourself (i.e. passion to buy). Maybe you disagree on that first point about the technology, but I don't think google would have a very hard time encroaching on Apple's market - they have the resources, the technical know how, and the cool factor needed - to produce and sell the products that Apple is known for. I do not believe that Apple, on the other hand, has the technical know how to make significant gains in Google's market. That, to me, means that Google has an advantage as far as the topic of this article goes. And is probably why Google doesn't have a problem with taking jabs at Jobs.

I don't know if I'm phrasing my point very well here ..

I understand what you're saying, but I still disagree. I think their competitive advantage is about how well they design their products. They do all of the little things right. The products look good, feel good and work right. If you have a problem, Apple Care is hands down the most competent tech support I've ever dealt …

Sometimes people actually buy products because they're good. What you suggest might work for a while, but there is no way that Apple could sustain the market if this were just for the cool factor as you suggest. Cool might work for a year, but not for the kind of sustained profits Apple has put up year after year.

BTW, really hard to take you seriously with that moniker. Just saying.

Thanks for the comment,
Ron

Ron

Google went after Apple in a big way at Google I/O last week and I've been seeing a lot comments suggesting that Google has now surpassed Apple technologically. First of all, I don't think you can dismiss Apple's market power that easily. Secondly, Google made some announcements, which doesn't equal products yet. Finally, Google provides tools for others to make things. Apple actually makes products (and people really want them). It's a big difference.

Do You Really Want to Piss Off Steve Jobs?

I sometimes wonder what Eric Schmidt is thinking. He has a good thing going there at Google, an ad selling machine combined with a powerful search algorithm and some very nice tools. The whole system, whether Android, Google Docs or the myriad of other tools has one mission: to drive traffic to Google properties where it can sell more ads.

But apparently billions and billions of dollars in ad sales is not enough for Schmidt and his cohorts. They also seem to want to emasculate Steve Jobs while they're at it, a move I don't think is terribly smart. By going after Apple, which really doesn't compete with Google ( iAds not withstanding ), they are making what is in my view a huge tactical error. Steve Jobs is not a guy you want as your enemy as others like Microsoft have learned the hard way. Going after Apple in this fashion makes little sense …

Angyal:
Thanks for the great comment. Much appreciated. Ya, I figure I haven't been doing my job if I don't ruffle some feathers in at least a couple of posts each month. :-)

Preston Gralla gives some reasons in his Computer World blog and some do sound somewhat compelling, but my point wasn't that Microsoft failed to innovate with this release. They may very well have, but I honestly don't believe it's going to make non-Hotmail users run to make a switch.

Microsoft has a lot of smart people inside its organizations and they have developed worthwhile innovations with Bing, Zune and probably with Hotmail too, but my questions is does it matter to the wider market at large and my answer is probably not.

Thanks again for your thoughtful comment.

Ron

I'm not even aware of Windows Live Messenger, but I assume it's the Windows IM client. There is a similar integration between Gmail and GTalk.

Thanks for your comment.

Ron

Just further proof, these folks are totally out of touch with today's computing environment and their own organizations. There's a clear lack of understanding among executives that I've witnessed at conferences. They often don't understand the difference between Web 2.0 tools like Facebook and Twitter and Enterprise 2.0 tools that have many of the same functions behind the firewall. They fail to see the open web tools like Facebook and Twitter as marketing channels, nor do they know that chances are their marketing department is making use of Facebook and Twitter, whether they are aware or not.

As for cloud computing, it's a similar story. When asked, most CIOs here in the States say they want to go slow, not knowing that many departments have already implemented their own solutions like Salesforce.com.

These are not the people to ask because these days, they really have no idea what's going on inside their own organizations.

Thanks for stopping by. You definitely made my day.

LOL. This is definitely a Friday afternoon comment exchange.

In fact, if Chuck Norris just thinks bad things about Apple, it's over, so they better watch out. ;-)

You can't fight Chuck Norris, Tech B. Everybody knows that! :-)

There was a lot of pushing and shoving going on this week among the biggest players in technology. Google had its I/O conference and introduced several products and services aimed squarely at Apple, but that wasn't enough for them. Oh no, they had to rub Steve Jobs' nose in what they were doing whether upgrading Android, adding music sales to their online App store, creating a viable alternative to Apple TV or announcing their very own video codec to compete with Apple's choice h.264. Oh and they compared Apple to Big Brother too, and if all of that weren't enough, they invited Adobe on stage and actually made of fun the fact that Flash didn't work on the iPad.

School Boys

It occurred to me this was getting ugly and I had the image of a school playground in my head:

* In one corner Apple pushed Adobe to the ground after bloodying its nose.

* Google suggested Apple pick on somebody its own size and shoved Apple.

* Apple just laughed and asked Google if that was the best they got.

* HP and Microsoft sat on the sidelines like a couple of scared wimpy kids wanting to join the fray, but not sure how to do it.

Just another week in the world of technology.

Jobs Strikes Back

Meanwhile Steve Jobs defended his proprietary world in an email exchange with Ryan Tate of Gawker …

Singleton,
This is an opinion piece. We also run reviews, but this isn't one of them. I disagree with your feelings about online alternatives. Tools like Google Docs are not toys. They are just as valid as Office and for enterprise users, much cheaper, for individual small business users, free.

Thanks for your comments and ideas.

Ron

I wholeheartedly disagree. Innovations in these products drive the market and force competitors to change. For example, the Metro UI in the Zune is very revolutionary, and you can see Apple include some of the side scrolling concepts in their products.

Hotmail is the largest provider of free mail on the internet. It would be wise to not alienate a majority of the internet in one sentence. Maybe if you took less time writing articles that bashed products, and took more time writing articles about actual news, you would be taken more seriously on this website.

Again, I never suggested that these products didn't have innovations. In fact, I acknowledged it twice (now 3 times), but I don't think it will have any real impact on Microsoft's bottom line. I agree it will help to drive changes in the individual markets (search, mp3 and online email)and if you had read my posts regularly you would know that I write about this tension among the big companies driving one another quite often, and I agree this is a positive force and great for consumers.

I am all for competition driving innovation and change and I write about this quite often.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. I really do welcome you pushing back even if you don't agree with me. It drives great discussion and I appreciate it.

Ron

Thanks, Davey. This has been my experience. I was more than a bit snarky in my post, but it doesn't change the fact that the basic premise of my post is valid.

Ron